(sandbox for my user page 2.0)


This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

AIW




Want to help Wikipedia? Remove wrongly put PRODs and save articles from oblivion!

who am i

29 y.o. Italian postdoc in Molecular Biology, currently working at the University of Cambridge.

Interests: biophysics, open source, politically uncorrectness, freedom of human knowledge. I am aware I am not the best of editors.

My nickname comes from this malformation. This may seem morbid. It's because actually, "curiosities" like that are open doors on the deep secrets of nature.

why deletionism is a PR disaster

New York Review of Books: "a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come...There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work"[1]
The Economist: "The behaviour of Wikipedia's self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as “wiki-lawyering”.[2]
The Guardian: "And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side."[3]
The Telegraph "The rise of the deletionists is threatening the hitherto peaceful growth of the world's most popular information source. It's on the discussion pages of articles nominated for deletion that anger creeps in. Policy documents are referred to only by abbreviations...the favourite of the deletionists WP:NOTE (notability)...The notability debate has spread across the discussions like a rash."[4]
PC Pro magazine: "For an example of the dark side running out of control, though, check out Wikipedia...It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire"
Los Angeles Times"...if even a small number of useful articles are being deleted in the name of keeping Wikipedia clean, isn't that like allowing a few innocent men to hang in favor of a lower crime rate?...Wikipedia's community has become so rushed, so immediatist, that it is not willing to allow embryonic articles even a tiny modicum of time to incubate"[5]
The Telegraph:"Wikipedia should delete the deletionists"[6]
"Wikipedia: A Quantiative Analysis", PHD: "the Wikipedia community needs to rein in so-called deletionists -- editors who shoot first and ask questions later."[7] [...]

Ikip 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC) ([8])

about my edits

When I can't edit properly due to time/concentration constraints, I am getting an habit of intervening on WP:AFD to help articles to be rescued from the deletionist wrath :)

My edit stats are here or here, depending on which tool you prefer.

todo

Proposals

edit

Alas, all of these are perennial proposals -yet I still support them :)

  • 3-AFD rule : A suggestion of User:Serendipodous -after an article has passed AfD 3 times, it shouldn't be AfD'd anymore unless there is a relevant change in policies. Also, draft and discuss.

Articles

edit

Also in general the Neofascism pages are lacking in info, verifying etc. (it's generally hard to find reliable informations about those movements, but...)

articles i started

Even before I had a WP account, so you're free not to believe me in some cases.

...and a bunch of others I don't remember yet :) .

contested PRODs that survived AfD

Many people misuse PROD tags. On obscure articles, PROD tagging can lead to deletion of fine articles without a community discussion. This should not happen. If you have doubts on an article, please bring articles at AfD for proper discussion!

disclosure

I have an account on the Wikipedia Review forum. I don't belong to the WR "community", however: I strongly disagree with almost all of their stances on WP, and I feel that WR is a problem not for their opinions but for transparency. I did the account only in the attempt of having a civil discussion with the "other side".

Committed identity: ee9fb9559e53bf2c0b6bcd91ef4dbbe0f638e5ae is a SHA-1 commitment to this user's real-life identity.