There is no doubt about the success of the Wikipedia, the user generated online encyclopedia. It has the largest number of articles, now close to ten million, and what is more, they are generally reliable. No other encyclopedia can match that.

However that very success is creating problems, or at least perceived to be creating problems.

Should Wikipedia try to include articles on every thing? Even on trivial matters, of interest to handful of people? For example, do we really need a detailed “biography” of obscure cartoon character? Especially when wikipedia biographies of people who had real influence on world such as certain historical personages are so spare? Some people argue that this “trivialization” lowers the Wikipedia’s overall reputation.

On the other hand, reducing the number of trivial articles as an editorial policy will not necessarily increase the number of substantive articles. A question we should ask is whether having trivial articles do any real harm? Maybe not, in fact contrary may be the truth. When people are allowed to create articles on subjects that interest them, including “trivial” ones, they are likely to create articles with substance as well. After all it is the users who generate the content and their interests should be catered to.

Another objection to deletion of so called trivial articles concerns the value judgment implied. Who will decide what is trivial and what is not? At present an “elite” group of most active users are given that power and they follow a complicated procedure when deciding to delete articles. This seems to be leading to lot of bureaucratic wrangling. As with any bureaucracy, all these procedures and rules increase the power of people who know how to play the system.

That Wikipedia of all things, has started going in that road is regrettable, in my personal opinion. Please let users in general decide.