To quote the content page: "There is currently no organized Exopedian group, and it is unlikely that there will ever be one, as an organized group is theoretically against the spirit of Exopedianism itself." To emphasize this point, there wasn't even a comment on the Talk:Exopedianism page until somoeone reading Wikipedia:Expert rebellion stumbled by. Skål - Williamborg 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Can we consider this as evidence that Wikipedia doesn't need a group trying to force it to be more encyclopaedic? I hate to say it, but the definition of encyclopedia has changed a lot since Wikipedia was founded. It should include more. Mathiastck 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it would change the definition of Encyclopedia, but rather, Wikipedia would not be classified as ONLY an encyclopedia, but a special sort which involves more interaction and more complex concepts in its ongoing creation than our traditional idea of an encyclopedia based on published ones. Affixing some kind of prefix (e.g. neoencyclopedia?) would reflect this. Tyciol 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Despite the above, this doesn't necessarily mean this cannot be formed. It would not necessarily go against the spirit of Exopedianism to associate based upon it. Exopedianism is about valuing encyclopedia editing as more important than medawikian editing. Exopedianism does not necessarily promote the complete absence of behind-the-scenes regulations. Moreso, it seems to me like a promotion of people not becoming involved in this to the point where they spend more time on it than actually editing articles. I think you will find objections to this to be comparable to those regarding the Association of Apathetic Wikipedians. Its existance is similarly also hypocritical, yet it can exist because you can be apathetic and yet not apathetic to the point of doing nothing, as obviously anyone that extreme would not even make a group or edit a wiki at all. Similarly, were any Exopedian so extremist, they would not have created this article about Exopedianism. Tyciol 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Two points: firstly, the article only says a group is "unlikely", not impossible. Secondly, there is no indication (nor is it a necessary assumption) that the user who created this article be an exopedian.
Just to add to that - exopedianism or metapedianism is not an all-or-none thing, some one might be somewhere along the metapedian-exopedian continuum. Secondly, if one were 100% exopedian, surely one would not know the meaning of the term. ACEOREVIVED 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposed changes for article names
I propose changing the article title "Exopedianism" to "Intrapedianism". I also propose that "Metapedians" be split into two distinct groups, the Metapedians who contribute to Wikipedia, and the "Parapedians", who do not.
If the article on Exopedianism is meant to be about editors whose primary focus is on content editing, then to call such people "exopedians", that is "standing outside or aloof from Wikipedia", is condescending. Far from standing outside Wikipedia, it is the content editors who are at the heart and centre of Wikipedia. It is the content editors who actually write Wikipedia, and who are often amongst the most committed editors. It is more the metapedians who stand outside Wikipedia.
Metapedians are a diverse lot. At one extreme is the sprinkling of wise and valuable policy setters, decent administrators, and useful wikignomes. At the other extreme is the dysfunctional psychopathology that any of the world's great internet forums inevitably attract. Here, Wikipedia becomes a playground for under-qualified and compulsive power players, malignant wikilawyers who see guidelines as tools for crushing other editors, narcissistic self publicists pouring stuff from their obsessions, autisms and other psychic wounds. There should never be a single group that lumps such a motley collection together. The later group are parasitic, feeding off the substance and energy provided by the other editors, and draining Wikipedia. For this reason, I propose retaining the name "Metapedians" for the useful group of metapedians, and introducing the new term "Parapedians" for the useless metapedians. --Geronimo20 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would have suggested "endopedian", but totally agree that "exopedian" is an inappropriate term. As for dividing the metapedians, it seems unlikely that they would self-sort into finer categories. Nadiatalent 17:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Exopedian" doesn't make sense to me either. 184.108.40.206 23:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)