Anarchopedia:Itself

Anarchopedia, itself makes claims about Anarchopedia, i.e. what it "is" or "is for":

• ...

These claims about itself guide the project. If a claim is made in even one place off to the side, it is important, and should be added to the above. If the claim is wrong, change it in the article it came from, and THEN change it here.

Mention of Anarchopedia, itself in articles requires some standards to ensure:

• Text need not change when moved elsewhere in the GFDL text corpus. If we refer to this project in the third person, as Anarchopedia, then the text stands up better when moved elsewhere in the GFDL text corpus. This should be a standard everywhere Anarchopedia, itself is mentioned within.

• Statements about "Anarchopedia is...", or "Anarchopedia does..." can be more easily found, closely examined, and disputed (by Anarchopedia:factions or otherwise). This is absolutely necessary to achieve deliberative democracy, design reflexivity and some positive brand management - we would not want strange claims or assertions about its purpose or character to go unexamined, and we would want to support any desirable role or purpose. This is simpler if 'what links here' is a comprehensive list. Accordingly, any mention that affects identity or defines or limits a purpose should be to Anarchopedia:Itself not ]Anarchopedia, to distinguish from casual mentions that do not make any such claims (e.g. what "Anarchopedia says..." about something that is not itself).

• It provides a positive counterpoint to Anarchopedia:What Anarchopedia is not, which is the negation of Anarchopedia:Itself. But by definition can't define any progressive or positive mission! It's easier to keep "not" updated if "is and does" are up to date.

• It reminds people to update the Main Page occassionally and keep up to date with the most effective terminology to describe concepts under discussion.

Anarchopedia:What Anarchopedia is not may actually be more important to understand for daily operating and governance decisions.