In Defense of Inclusionism (2009-18)
As a purely end-user of Wikipedia I just want to chip in only to say that I have not seen any observable decline in Wikipedia over the last 15 years. I am generally very happy with the results I get when I use it.<p>&gt; The fundamental cause of the decline is the English Wikipedia’s increasingly narrow attitude as to what are acceptable topics and to what depth those topics can be explored, combined with a narrowed attitude as to what are acceptable sources, where academic &amp; media coverage trumps any consideration of other factors.<p>I guess it sucks for people who wanted to write articles on each chapter of Atlas Shrugged or thought Bulbasaur needed his own page. Presumably, though, you agree there should be SOME criteria for what is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? For example, in order of increasing mundanity these topics probably don&#x27;t deserve a Wikipedia article: Me, my cat, my cat&#x27;s water bowl, the water in the bowl on May 5, 2020 etc.<p>Like, there must be some line that separates what deserves an article and what is does not. We can argue about where to draw that line but I&#x27;m actually pretty happy with how Wikipedia has done it.