out of scope

out of scope

Depending on the jurisdiction and mission, many pages can be considered out of scope for any large public wiki. The wiki best practice is to either
  • for pages that are close but not quite in scope, redirect these pages to the most closely related issue that is in scope
  • to leave as an example of an out of scope page, place notices on the tops of page to explain why the concept is not to be debated at openpolitics.ca itself.
  • redirect to this page.


Spam is out of scope by definition, so much so that special prejudicial rules apply to eliminate most or all traces of its existence. Assuming the page has merit to exist:

The reasons for labeling a page out of scope include:
  • offensive subject (beyond what mass media would publish in a major newspaper)
  • offensive characterizations of persons or groups as implied by the page name - which should be changed if the actual objective subject is in scope
  • profiles of an organization or a person who is not a public figure or otherwise in the news.
  • wrong jurisdiction: applies only to another country
  • wrong topic: is not a topic considered to be relevant to public policy.
  • minutia - refers to something that can easily be appended to existing pages and is more usefully addressed in context.
  • eccentric or ideosyncratic, and not citing any external sources
  • meets Wikipedia's criteria for candidates for speedy deletion
  • is not in English


Any political wiki must take care to respect its mandate or become hopelessly entangled in dispute?s it can't resolve. This wiki, itself has scope rules derived from:

The rules of openpolitics.ca itself may be seen as a tensegrity between the considerations the above imply. Accordingly, the following are out of scope due to basic mandate issues:
    • current events or news absolutely irrelevant to Canadian politics itself?, i.e. a very local issue with no implications for Canadian policies or practices which Canadian choices have no impact on whatsoever
      • for instance, watershed? management problems of the Mekong? have potential to start global war? and are relevant, while those of a minor river in Siberia are only important if they cast some light on boreal forest? management problems within Canadian jurisdiction
    • generic science? or philosophy irrelevant to open politics itself and also to policy choices that reasonably might be made by Canadians, e.g. the long term potential of galactic war if genus homo does not start behaving as if sentient?.
      • scientifically valid but technologically infeasible visions within a seventh generation? timeline, assuming no overt contact with time travel?lers, divinity?, godlike AI? or natural species not of Earth origin?, are a reasonable scope limit to apply - see limits of vision?
    • not a valid comment on politics itself, e.g. a page whose name or existence implies that a given religion or dogma? is superior and must be adopted;
      • the political virtues must guide the response however, usually a Lowest Troll must be involved to tease out "the point" from such edits and put positions from ethical tradition?s in the rightful place in which they belong

dispute resolution

The choice of what is or isn't out of scope at openpolitics.ca itself is subjective and can made by regular editors, but in the event of a dispute, senior editors decide. Disputes between these is settled not by wiki ideology but ideally by a faction system or consensus decision making, e.g. the agenda protocol which was developed due to experience at LivingPlatform.CA itself.

To move page?s or rename page?s is priveleged, but refactoring, i.e. moving and integrating and redirecting does not require any special priveleges. It should be done on an equal power relationship basis among cooperating individual editors. This is wiki best practice in any wiki ideology so should be uncontroversial.

Show php error messages