User:The Cunctator/Questionable pages

There are pages which are controversial because they talk about WikiPedia, and thus define it in ways which may be contrary or harmful to the mission of WikiPedia (as ultimately defined by LMS). I don't think that's the case, but people have raised objections to them. LMS has stated objections to some of them, and may remove them at any time without notice. It's a pretty safe bet that since this page falls into that category, someone will object to it.

It's possible its self-referential quality will provide it some protection from summary deletion, and people are welcome to discuss the merits of its existence. Of course, people should be aware that such discussion may be contrary to the mission of Wikipedia, and may thus cause its immediate removal without notice.


 * Cunc, it appears that there has been some evolution since you wrote this. For one thing tracking the Self-references seem to be accepted as part of the process of self-definition, and Mention of wiki in articles seems to be neutralizing, that is, no longer is any claim of any role or status of the project other than 'becoming a respectable encyclopedia' summarily censored.  People are permitted to claim, in standing articles, that wikipedia "is" or "is serving as" or "to some degree acts as" or "is an example of" something other than "an encylopedia", without triggering absurd reactions.  Of course it requires dedicated effort to keep such self-references as a part of the Wikipedia proper, and not toss them off as 'yet another meta concern', that is, something to be ignored or used only to identify 'enemies' for 'witchhunts'.

Below are general arguments for and against removal.

I propose that this page should only be directly edited to strengthen the arguments of each side, and that objections should be raised in the Talk page. Better yet would be if someone could present a "NPOV" version that doesn't frame it as pro-and-con, but simply discusses the inherent causes of the conflict.

General arguments for removal
The existence of the page is contrary or harmful to the mission of WikiPedia. For example, it may
 * cause harm by encouraging directly harmful behavior.

The existence of the page is potentially contrary or harmful to the mission of WikiPedia.

While it would be possible to mitigate the harm caused by the page by other means, in particular social means (e.g. consensus and Wikipetiquette), it's better to simply prevent the harm by banning the subject. Dealing with problems by consensus requires time and effort, potentially vast, which would be better spent on creating and editing entries.


 * Perhaps, though, the time spent in political wars is also inefficient, see User:Waveguy who laid out a few questions on this issue.

General arguments against removal
All information is important. Information does not cause harm; how it's presented does. The destruction of information is contrary to the mission of Wikipedia.

The ideal should be to have a encyopedia so well-explained that anyone can contribute almost directly on discovering it and the further we move this explanation away from this site the worse it will get.

Spin control. If certain topics are banned, they may only then be discussed off-site, defining Wikipedia with impunity. On-site, consensus and Wikipetiquette can control their presentation and use. The potential harm by this page should be dealt with through social means rather than censorship.

Socially, Wikipedia is best served by being an open book, without any banned subjects or secrets. The concern should be how to present information, not whether to present it.


 * Wikipedians/History: A chronological listing of Wikipedians

Argument for removal
This will be used as a subtle way of creating a hierarchy.

Argument against removal
All information is important: attribution is paramount. This in particular is useful, if not critical, information for historians.

Potential harm is not sufficient cause for removal; harm which cannot be repaired by other means should be demonstrated first.


 * Wikipedia policy/Blocked IPs

Agument for removal
This page may be construed as a blacklist.

This may be construed as a hall of fame for miscreants.

Argument against removal
It's a fact that there are blocked IPs; Wikipedians deserve to know what they are, on general principles.

It's a reference if the need to know that information arises, for example if for some reason they get an IP within the blocked ranges.


 * User:ManningBartlett/Naughty people

Argument for removal
This page may be construed as a blacklist.

This may be construed as a hall of fame for miscreants, and encourage them.

Argument against removal
It's a personal page, and thus it's harder to construe as endorsed as official Wikipedia policy.

No encouragement has been observed.

One can cut and paste the IP into the Ctrl-F box in recent changes and easily see if they have been active.

Note: this page has also been posted to Wikipedia commentary/Questionable pages, as I am unsure where it is more appropriate (I do believe it's appropriate somewhere on Wikipedia), and I want to let consensus guide its placement.


 * See also : The Cunctator