I am fascinated with Wikipedia and its free and open nature. I see it as profoundly revolutionary.
I am a moderate inclusionist, and so I see excessive exclusionism and deletionism as a problem. I see the value in both eventualism and immediatism. However, I do not believe that immediatists should unilaterally delete articles or exclude information—they should immediately improve them. From what I have seen so far, exclusionists and deletionists hold the upper hand here at Wikipedia because it is easier to remove information or delete articles than it is to invest time and effort in improving them.
One problem I have noticed regarding mergism is that as the information under a subtopic grows, there is a tendency to trim that information down because it overshadows the rest of the article. The problem then is not that the subtopic is too long, but that the main article is too short—not voluminous enough to balance out the particular subtopic. To counteract this editorial trimming, in some cases I would advocate the creation of a new article, in which such editorial trimming is unnecessary and new information can be added without hesitation.
I will try to compile a list over time of articles which I deem acceptable, but which others regard as borderline. I may not personally find some articles interesting or of value, but I respect the curiosity of others and their faith that Wikipedia can inform them.
.jpg)
