Jump to content

Association of Amoral Wikimedians

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Advertising Supplement
Keep for the Children

Don't let your child ask you, "Daddy, where were you when they deleted my favorite band's page before they were big?" Because what will you say? "I was at work", "I didn't care," "I am an eeeeevil deletionist"?

Keep all garage band pages! Strike a blow for the little musician.

Advertising Supplement
Move Along, Nothing To See Here


This ad not paid for by Adbusters.





Welcome to the snooty Amoral Wikimedians association, we who are neither moral nor immoral, but very very verbose.

Motto

[edit]
rupistin' hodie civitatem?

Have you broken your [state - body politic] today? It doesn't really mean anything in an ethical code sort of way, but it's darned cool.

Beliefs and ideals

[edit]
Exclusionist list of ethical codes which AAWikiMedians do not consistently subscribe to or repudiate:
Deletionism
Inclusionism
Mergism
Exclusionism
Eventualism
Immediatism
Darwikinism
Vandalism
Delusionism
Metapedianism
+/- Exopedianism

We're amoral, folks! we don't do that sort of thing.

I mean, we don't agree there is an objectively definable 'good', or an objectively definable 'bad', so you can't have moral or immoral behaviour. Even if you consider the idea of ethical codes, especially those which are inconsistently espoused (i.e. religious), strict adherence would be anathema, antithetical, and darned dull.

Not that this by any means suggest we cannot follow such, just that we shouldn't be consistent about it. Or anything else. Like staying on topic.

Which reminds me...

Associations or ideals we support

[edit]

So the motto is "Have you smashed the state today?"? Then how about the Association of Anarchist Wikipedians?

Joining up

[edit]
Albrecht Dürer, The Revelation of St John: The Four Riders of the Apocalypse, 1497-98,

Don't join up! Everybody who doesn't join up is of course a member. Joining up would imply agreement with the beliefs and ideals espoused on this page, and we wouldn't want to do that now would we?

On the other hand, listing people who are members would be acceptable, simply because it recognizes an existing state.

Members

[edit]