1. By "internally" I meant primarily for the purpose of Wikipedia itself, as opposed to closed. I admit the choice of term was poor or misleading.
2. I don't want more controversial topics, I just meant that I can see how Wikipedia would want to track or flag topics that are especially controversial. Controversiality (if that's even a thing) is just an example. I just meant I could see how Wikipedia would want to flag topics based on some quantitative criterion.
3. That's a big topic and I'd rather not delve into it. Some might be on such a list if I made one, but others would not, and still others that aren't on the list would be there. I think my underlying concern is that there shouldn't be a list at all. If it's important enough to be on Wikipedia, it is important.
4. Again, I wouldn't have a list of "importance." I would have a discussion of which topics should be flagged, and why--what the criteria are for deciding something should be flagged--and flag based on those criteria. My sense is it should be based on something objective and quantifiable.
2. I don't want more controversial topics, I just meant that I can see how Wikipedia would want to track or flag topics that are especially controversial. Controversiality (if that's even a thing) is just an example. I just meant I could see how Wikipedia would want to flag topics based on some quantitative criterion.
3. That's a big topic and I'd rather not delve into it. Some might be on such a list if I made one, but others would not, and still others that aren't on the list would be there. I think my underlying concern is that there shouldn't be a list at all. If it's important enough to be on Wikipedia, it is important.
4. Again, I wouldn't have a list of "importance." I would have a discussion of which topics should be flagged, and why--what the criteria are for deciding something should be flagged--and flag based on those criteria. My sense is it should be based on something objective and quantifiable.