Wikipedia talk:Propagate the model, not issues

Hi Fixuture,

1. Isn't this more useful on meta than on wikipedia ?
2. I find the inclusion of examples as they are now, to 'weaken' the strength of the essay. Especially as some of the examples such as SOPA and the amicus brief regarding Trump's executive order have rather staunch opponents and proponents. Better to just list all of them and NOT categorise them as bad vs controversial vs good in my opinion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheDJ: That's a good point. Didn't think about that as I'm not active much on meta and am used to creating pages here. I'll probably move it there besides if there are any objections or good reasons not to.

I think those are absolutely essential. I know that these actions have their proponents and opponents alike but that just makes the page a bit controversial which is not a bad thing. Opponents of the anti-SOPA campaign etc here should gain insight into the rationale behind it (for having that put into context) and proponents of the amicus brief should be warned about and encouraged to reconsider that action as it violates and endangers this method of conduct (and it's also what made me create this page in the first place).

The page doesn't really categorise them as "bad vs controversial vs good" but lists potential violations of this principle (which btw imo endangers the propagation of Wikipedia and its principles as a whole among other things - we will simply fail with propagating the model if we turn to propagating issues).

--Fixuture (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)