bad page names

See bad page name on how to notice and mark them, and list of bad page names for names that you should fix NOW. You can also check what links to bad page name. This page lists any discussions of the impact of such names. Many of these are also cross listed on list of process papers and the most urgent - like Green URIs - are on the list of process proposals.

Why are bad page names so toxic in the Living Platform? Why must we make it an immediate priority to change any such names the instant we see them, without a discussion or debate?

Simple: names make things exist. Every name is a power grab. Some things are simply errors of scope like Summary - which obviously does not summarize anything in particular - one would have to read it to know what it is about, and that's obviously wrong.

A more serious error is to fail to conserve capitals - making things appear as properly-named specific concepts already subject to some commit verb, when in fact no such commitment may exist.

More politically, some things are not supposed to exist in any given namespace, such as a single Abortion. In the Living Platform we try to give all platform proposals equal status when written, so as not to give overmuch power to those who write theirs first. If someone writes a "Statement" and someone else an "Alternate Statement" then this suggests immediately that the first is a default and the Alternate must struggle for credibility. This is not participatory democracy.

If bad page names are allowed to stand, they acquire a power that ultimately subverts the naming conventions and the equal-power relationships that they are trying to foment.

They are a cancer. They must be found early and eliminated.