Wikipedia talk:Content authoritarianism

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize 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.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia 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.

Support

I'd just like to show my support for this essay by starting the talk page

†he Bread 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you find my little ramblings at least somewhat enjoyable. It's nice to know I'm not completely off-base. -- Y|yukichigai 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was off-base? I any case, you already know that I agree. Gamer Junkie 02:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move it out of userspace

I would strongly encourage moving this to Wikipedia:Content authoritarianism (note capitalization fix per the MoS on article names). This is very good, but its unlikely to get much traction if you continue to own it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd planned on doing so eventually, I just wanted to get more input from other editors and maybe add a few more entries first. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keen. Another MoS change: All the headings should be in the form "Misidentifying content authoritarianism", not "Misidentifying Content Authoritarianism", and the concept "content authoritarianism" shouldn't be capitalized (c.f "communism", and other -isms; not proper names). Nitpick, nitpick. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four more "Identifying" items to consider

The would-be "owner", often just a hair short of the literal interpretation of WP:OWN. I think you know who I'm talking about lately, though the practice is fairly widespread in articlespace, too.
The status-quo defender. Resists change for the sake of resisting change.
The policy inventor. Creates new guidelines and policies (or merges existing ones) with little input from the community and then declares the results to be policies or guidelines without going through the proposal process. A few ArbCom cases have commented on this sort of behavior. Look into the one about WP:NNOT for starters (in the case-closing comments about WP:NNOT's opponents. Following the username of the admin criticized for this behavior there through other ArbCom cases will turn up more ArbCom criticisms of this practice.)
The ranter: Insists on their version of the text, usually with no logically-defendable argument, just lots of POV verbiage or tortured reasoning, or sometimes very short uncivil responses, while ignoring all objections to the edit; complains of being censored and may threaten vainly to have you blocked for vandalism if you don't stop reverting their nonsense edits.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are a little too specific and I'll have to generalize them (e.g. "the policy inventor"-type thing could affect normal articles as well) but they're all fairly good. I'll get crackalakin', as it were. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they were just off the top of my head. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]