 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Abundance and redundancy deals with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is apreferred solution thatmaterial be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases,edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belonghere, because it belongs in another article". Instead of removing content,it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.
Since most articles are very small (under 10 kB) there is no bandwidth need to exclude material on the basis of its redundancy across articles. Ease of reading is facilitated by the inclusion of relevant material, rather than disinclusion. If we weren't redundant, general articles would be chopped up into tiny little bits – each of which would link to specialized articles that you had to piece together.
More often this situation involves a disagreement about the validity of facts and/or their sources. Or, often, it's about the inclusion of points of view that differ. These tend to be examples of where materials that contradict the material already present in the article are contested. It's a reflex tendency of someone attached to a topic to want toexclude facts that seemingly contradict other facts in the article. It is often a flaw of human nature to want to simplify contentious topics by merelyexcluding points of view that disagree with it. This in fact, is the reason for theWP:NPOV policy. Even in these cases,abundance and redundancy as a rule of thumb can lead to a solution.
This represents a common scenario: In these cases, an enormous amount of time and energy is wasted on theexclusion of something, as opposed to simplyincluding it. "555", claims that this would be" redundant", but they areincorrect – "redundancy" only detracts if it's on thesame article. As a rule;if the material is factual, and if it's not entirely irrelevant to the topic, itshould not be excluded.
"555" wanted the facts to be handled in adiscorporate way: to isolate elements that are controversial: So thatif they eventually are found to be false, can be disassociated from the "Geminye cult". Although it doesn't seem to be logical to worry about a Wikipedia article, people do battle over history and the way it is written all the time.