Wikipedia talk:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

What about moving this to Wikipedia:Policies, Content, and Community. It will allow for developing these ideas further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection if others agree with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what I see so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Diverse views"[edit]

First of all, let me say that this is a good start. I did make a change on the issue of your saying that one could not document their own views, which IMO is not quite right. If someone is familiar with a view, you want their input on it, given that the view itself is notable.

I am also concerned with the words "diverse views". Much of the time, there is only one notable viewpoint on a topic. One example is special relativity, where the viewpoints that it is wrong have become solely of historical interest. Because of that, that article is a description of the theory as it is now known and its major effects. There is no reporting of diverse views because of a lack of diversity of notable views on the topic.

My suggestion is to talk about "prominent views" or "notable views" and maybe even mention WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

Overall, I approve of the focus of this essay: That the role of policies is to empower those who seek to use the wiki process to gain consensus and create good articles. --EMS | Talk 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are an improvement. More examples may be needed, and I suspect that others will want to refine this a ways. There are issues of context, as there are disputes involving special relativity, but they don't become notable until you start looking at the appropriate part of the theory. For example, there is a dispute over the postulates of special relativity, but the minority view on that issue is not notable to special relativity as a whole. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Anarchy"?[edit]

Surely "collaborative anarchy" is only one view of what WP is. 'Anarchy' is a word loaded with political and historical baggage. I's say a more NPOV word is called for. Views? Spanglej (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative anarchy is only one view. It is my view. I chose the word with much deliberation and thought. Others share my view (many shared it when I wrote the essay), but some do not. But essays never have to be NPOV, no more than talk pages or my talk page. It reflects my views and those of any who endorse it. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to write their own essay! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the "essay" banner: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints." In the early years of Wikipedia a great many of the active contributors explicitly considered this an anarchist project. I am not surprised that as the number and diversity of Wikipedians has grown, the percentage who hold to this view has shrunk. But it definitely should not be erased or forgotten. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified Ruleset[edit]

This essay is currently linked from WP:SIMPLE. I'm not sure it is ideal for new users. Would you be opposed to me taking it down as a See Also link, and replacing it with something different? Ocaasi ^c 09:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]