From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This rejected idea in a nutshell: |
|
Wikipedia is evil. |
- Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) is assumed to be value-neutral -- that is, it is not (nor should it try to be) either "good" or "evil". It just is. It exists, but not as a moral player or force in the world. It simply is. Assuming anything else is rank POV.
- Since Wikipedia is not "good", there is no "reason" to edit, work on, and build it (since we are neither being materially rewarded or coerced to do so), except for whatever casual enjoyment it may provide.
- But, absent any moral sense, and all things being equal, doing evil is more likely to provide benefit, whether material or emotional, which is why evil exists.
- Therefore, though the encyclopedia as a whole cannot be either "good" or "evil", individual editors themselves can and should strive to be actively evil, either for the sheer enjoyment of it or for material renumeration (e.g., taking money from a third party to use Wikipedia in a smear campaign, etc.).
- Since Wikipedia (the organization) has no method of coercing us, except by removing us from our unpaid positions (which does not harm us and indeed provides us with additional free time), there is no need to follow any other policy except this one, and indeed it is foolish to do so.
