Musings:The Virtues and Follies of an Universal Wiki
👑 We founded this wiki in late 2018 partially due to us not finding any online wikis primarily aimed at monarchists. As far as we're aware, we do not possess any competitors. As such, we are in a prime position to define, codify, and standardize monarchist ideas and values worldwide.
Yet we are also weary of this opportunity. We've observed Wikipedia and witnessed how universal codification projects can be detrimental to culture. Any codification project has to decide what to include and exclude. A particularist project has the benefit of legitimately excluding ideas that aren't particular to its mission or audience. Wikipedia, however, aspires to be an universalist wiki–a wiki about nearly anything and for nearly anyone. Thus, Wikipedia has to grapple with the problem of how to be universal while excluding content and potential contributors, all while maintaining the pretense of legitimacy and avoiding the appearance of hypocrisy.
Wikipedia attempts to solve this problem by enforcing a what they call "neutral point of point", restricting content to those that can be linked to what they call a "reliable source", and having decisions made by what they call "consensus". Wikipedia uses words such as "neutral", "reliable", and "consensus" to project a pretense of legitimacy, yet anyone with experience with Wikipedia knows that this pretense of legitimacy is just that–a pretense–and that Wikipedia and its community are woefully hypocritical.
Wikipedia's reliance on "neutrality" and "consensus" means that Wikipedia's content is inherently solipsistic (i.e. instead of presenting actual reality, Wikipedia presents an agreeable abstraction or model of it), and its community is inherently sophistic (i.e. Wikipedians presenting the most faltering ideas dominate discussions and become elected to higher ranks). Wikipedia's solipsistic universalism means that it must pander to the lowest common denominator, and due to the variety of faiths and ethnicities on the world, Wikipedians stripe these very things–faith and ethnicity–away in order to pander to that low denominator. Thus, Wikipedia's content and community is secular, atheist, internationalistic, liberal, and utterly sterile, as these traits appeal to, or are inoffensive to, the greatest amount of people.
However, we find Wikipedia disconcerting not only in its methods but also in its success. Wikipedia dwarfs its competitors. As of this time of writing, Alexa.com assigns Wikipedia a global rank of five and Infogalactic with a global rank of 104,788. In effect, Wikipedia standardizes information across the globe, pushing particularisms aside. Wikipedia is thus a force of globalization.
Perhaps then, it would be best to invest in and promote wiki that are particular to certain nations and values. One such wiki is Conservapedia, which is particular to the United States and its conservatism. If Conservapedia turns liberals and non-Americans off due to its overt Americanism, then it's a sign that it's doing its job right. Indeed, it's good for a wiki not to be for everyone. The narrower the community; the more each community member has in common with each other, which makes for a more harmonious community and environment.
Thus, we believe that it would be best for Monarchists.Wiki to be relatively narrow in its mission, audience, and scope. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there are many types of monarchists. Must we please them all? Nay, compromising and watering down our content to pander to every type of monarchist wouldn't do culture any good.
Must we restrict ourselves to documenting the monarchism of one particular nation or dynasty? That would be difficult for 👑 us to do, as 👑 we were born and raised in the United States, a nation founded on separating itself from Britain and the British monarchy. When we (and perhaps other Americans) look to the past for inspiring monarchs, we often look to foreign monarchs such as King Charles XII of Sweden, the Bonaparte's, or Imam Yahya of North Yemen.
In addition, perhaps it would be good not to be too particular. Would Plato, Aristotle, or Marcus Aurelius complain about their works spreading beyond the time-frame and borders of their respective civilizations? Were their works meant to glorify one particular dynasty?
Thus, we believe that anyone to the Left of 19th Century Bonapartism should be excluded from this project. We also believe that what Vox Day has dubbed the Fake Right should be excluded from this project. We shall also take a perennialistic, rather than secular, approach to religion, as 👑 we admire the monarchies of Malaysia and Thailand. We believe that this would allow Monarchists.Wiki to have a harmonious narrowness while allowing American monarchists and others to participate in our endeavors.
- "Wikipedia.org Traffic, Demographics and Competitors". Alexa.com. 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
- "Infogalactic.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors". Alexa.com. 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-27.