Talk:Meta-discussion

Meta-discussion may seem artificial and even a waste of time as opposed to actual consideration of a topic. Interestingly, on his user page, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales expresses a wish to keep meta-discussion of Wikipedia to a minimum on the encyclopedia's website.

While I certainly appreciate the irony of having this here, with a link to Jimbo's principle that we shouldn't have it here, maybe we should rewrite this to use non-Wikipedia sources. Twinxor t 22:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

I couldn't resist the irony. There are already a number of non-Wikipedia examples in the article, so why not use Jimbo's comment, too? It adds a little humor (smile). Casey Abell 04:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

Another user removed the Jimbo example. I won't get into an edit war over this because the change hardly affects the article, but using Jimbo's remark seems harmless to me. It's a valid example of the use of the term "meta-discussion," and it lightens the article's tone a little. And since this is the meta-discussion article, the example doesn't "look inward" but is actually on-topic for the article. Casey Abell 12:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

If Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for discussing Wikipedia , then where is the appropriate venue? There is a vast backlog of topics in need of a public discussion, so that we can clear the are and move forward as a neutral group. Washuchan73 (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Start-Class philosophy of language articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of language articles
• Philosophy of language task force articles