User:Zenwhat/The diamond essay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
The Diamond Essay cuts through all ignorance of Wikipedia policy and procedure. Therefore, it is called, "The Diamond Essay" and is policy. It is based upon the Diamond Sutra. Philosophically, it reflects the Zen concept of emptiness and the idea that Wikipedia is intrinsically empty.
Contents |
[edit] Is this not just an essay?
All essays are policies. All policies are essays. How can this be? "Essay" is just a word. "Policy" is just a word. What people refer to as "essays" are often not in fact essays. What people refer to as "policies" are often not in fact policies. All essays are rooted in policy and all policy is rooted in essays. Essays are not distinct from policy and policy is not distinct from essays. Those who perceive this perceive the true essays and true policies.
[edit] What is Wikipedia policy?
All policy is non-policy. All non-policy is policy. How can this be? "Policy" is just a word. "Non-policy" is just a word. What people refer to as "policy" is often not in fact policy. What people refer to as "non-policy" is often not in fact non-policy. All non-policy is rooted in policy and all policy is rooted in non-policy. Policy is not distinct from non-policy and non-policy is not distinct from policy. Those who perceive this perceive the true policy and true non-policy.
[edit] Who are administrators?
All administrators are vandals. All vandals are administrators. How can this be? "Administrator" is just a word. "Vandal" is just a word. What people refer to as an "administrator" is often not in fact an administrator. What people refer to as a "vandal" is often not in fact a vandal. All administration is rooted in vandalism and all vandalism is rooted in administration. Administration is not distinct from vandalism and vandalism is not distinct from administration. Those who perceive this perceive the true administrators and the true vandals.
[edit] Why was my article deleted?
All articles are deleted. All deleted articles are full of content. "Deleted" is just a word. "Content" is just a word. What people refer to as "deletion" is often not in fact deletion. What people refer to as "content" is often not in fact content. All deletion is rooted in content and all content is rooted in deletion. Deletion is not distinct from content and content is not distinct from deletion. Those who perceive this perceive true deletion and true article content.
[edit] Does this have consensus?
All consensus is non-consensus. All non-consensus is consensus. "Consensus" is just a word. "Non-consensus" is just a word. What people refer to as "consensus" is often not in fact consensus. What people refer to as "non-consensus" is often not in fact non-consensus. All consensus is rooted in non-consensus and all non-consensus is rooted in consensus. Consensus is not distinct from non-consensus and non-consensus is not distinct from consensus. Those who perceive this perceive true consensus and true non-consensus.
[edit] When should I ignore the rules?
All rules are non-rules. All non-rules are rules. "Rules" is just a word. "Non-rules" is just a word. What people refer to as "rules" are often not in fact rules. What people refer to as "non-rules" are often not in fact non-rules. All rules are rooted in non-rules and all non-rules are rooted in rules. Rules are not distinct from non-rules and non-rules are not distinct from rules. Those who perceive this perceive the true rules and true non-rules.
