First, I don't understand what you mean by "having this sort of list internally". Wikipedia is completely open, so what does "internally" even mean?
Second, I don't understand your desire. Do you want more controversial topics? The goal of an encyclopedia is not to list/explain controversial topics[+], or am I mistaken somehow?
Third, to be concrete: who should come off the list and who should be on the list if you don't agree?
Fourth: if you don't agree on the list and can't come up with replacements, give us exactly the definitions that should be used to warrant inclusion. My guess is that these definitions / rules / decisions are so difficult to make in the first place, that agreeing on those rules is as difficult as agreeing on the people / topics that are included in the list.
[+] Definitely not to mark them as somehow more important than other subjects that are less controversial.
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.
Second, I don't understand your desire. Do you want more controversial topics? The goal of an encyclopedia is not to list/explain controversial topics[+], or am I mistaken somehow?
Third, to be concrete: who should come off the list and who should be on the list if you don't agree?
Fourth: if you don't agree on the list and can't come up with replacements, give us exactly the definitions that should be used to warrant inclusion. My guess is that these definitions / rules / decisions are so difficult to make in the first place, that agreeing on those rules is as difficult as agreeing on the people / topics that are included in the list.
[+] Definitely not to mark them as somehow more important than other subjects that are less controversial.