|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia:THINKTANK |
 |
This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: Many Wikipedia namespace pages criticized as duplication of existing processes are actually harmless think tanks. |
People sometimes form groups in the Wikipedia namespace that others criticize as redundant duplication of existing processes. For instance, a few rumblings have been made that Wikipedia:Page protection patrol may duplicate Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, although fortunately no one has bothered to bring it Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion yet. People will say, "Well, we already have a process that deals with this particular subject, so this is just more bureaucracy that enables forum-shopping, etc."
Many of these type of groups are like think tanks. People with a certain agenda want to get like-minded people together to come up with some good ideas for fixing what they perceive as a problem, so they basically caucus together at these groups and look for specific examples of where the problem is occurring, that they can point out to others. These groups become a "friendlier" place for talking about these things since the opposition is not as ubiquitous; and in a way, it may even be doing the opposition a service by them not having to be bothered by constant complaints and discussions going on in the more mainstream forums. If they wish, they can just ignore these little think tanks.
The Wikipedia think tanks' role is similar to that of think tanks on Capitol Hill. They analyze policy, keeping records of their agenda-oriented discussions for posterity, in case someone else wants to use those arguments and facts to further that agenda later. They try to figure out strategies for reform. They also look for egregious cases of abuse that can be used to make arguments for reform.
One might argue in reference to all these think tanks on K Street – all these institutes on economic issues, civil liberties, etc. – that they are redundant, since we already have a Congress, President, and Supreme Court whose full-time jobs are to address public issues. Yet, think tanks are there because sometimes it is more effective for citizens to try to influence the system as organized interest groups rather than on their own. Through the information that is gathered in one place, citizens can make better-informed, more cogent arguments. Some think tanks may gain a lot of respect and members, but this is not to necessarily say that they are attempting to take over the role of government as the means and venue by which decisions are made. A discussion at an inclusionist think tank, for instance, may reach the unanimous consensus that a page should be kept; but this has no bearing on what actually happens to the page, since those decisions are made at AfD. So why worry about forum-shopping?
Then there is the issue of confusion – e.g., that people will mistake a think tank for a formal Wikipedia process, and take their nomination to the wrong place. That can be resolved easily enough by a prominent notice at the top of such a site, noting the correct place to take such nominations. What is more likely is that such red herrings will be used as excuses to crush the organized expression of divergent viewpoints.
In short, please leave the think tanks alone. Let them fulfill their role, rather than MfD'ing them. And if you don't like the idea of think tanks, don't join them.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |