'''"Creator as owner"''' is a part of a proposed WikiPrinciples to establish a minimal sense of "rights". That is, whoever creates a page, is ''ipso facto'' the '''owner''' of that page, until otherwise transferred by same. Importantly, by "owner", it is not implied any sense of being a landlord, that would be against the way of the wiki.

Rationales:

* the ''coinage'' of a good title page (a WikiName) requires a bit of effort. If others want to be the owner of a similar topic, they can create different, additional titles.
* it gives a clear point where other's wiki content can be deleted. See RefactorOverDeletion.

WikiStub:

The first rule self-organizes a wiki into PerfectTitle''''''s. That is, poor titles and pages will eventually die from lack of feeding. It is intended as a way to establish a '''default''' point of responsibility when ''none other exists''. That is the only purpose to which I'm applying the otherwise-loaded word "owner". If it creates a sense of responsibility from the person who originates the page and stewardship by the others, then all for the best.

''This is not unreasonable for a Wiki, but is contrary to the traditions and values of WardsWiki. Here, the only page that has an owner is your HomePage. That is yours. All else is ours. We share and collaborate to create value that belongs to everyone.''

I understand it is a bit contrary to the ''traditions'' of the wiki, but I hope to demonstrate that it is not contrary to its ''values'' - particularly in light of various exodus of good WikiZens. I have edited the above to further clarify this point. If good WikiZens leave because their content is not respected, then how to re-invigorate the wiki? It's one thing to keep it alive, but another thing for it to thrive again. I remember its inception, and miss the community. It's become a bit of a "house of crystal" - lovely, but inert.

''Some good WikiZens left because their content was not respected by vandals (see GrammarVandal, for example), which no amount of policy can fix. Said WikiZens had no problem with collaborative editing. Others left because there are now a plethora of forums and wikis -- many with far superior facilities -- that cater to their specific interests. Some left because they contributed to Wiki at a point in their lives or careers where such was appropriate, and now they have moved on to other things. Wiki is indeed, in many areas, a "house of crystal", but that's because we value the history of agile development, object oriented patterns, and the invention of wikis that it preserves. In other areas, it is very active.''