4 ms·

This isn't in any way about gender identity, it's about the fact that there _isn't_ a universal values system. You mentioned the US, the UK, Australia, New Zea

by Mizza 6y ago

This isn't in any way about gender identity, it's about the fact that there _isn't_ a universal values system. You mentioned the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand - do you notice a pattern there? Throw in Canada and you've perfectly recreated the FIVEEYES international surveillance pact members. It's a culturally homogeneous group. I think you'd get very different results if you were trying to come up with a universal conduct framework and you actually bothered including Russia, China, India, Venuzuela.. Of course, they weren't properly asked and provided no input , because this is a subtle form of upper class Western imperialism.

bawolff 6y ago
Of course there is not a universal value system. If you asked someone from nazi germany how they felt about jewish people editing wikipedia, they would probably respond negatively. Does it follow that we should care? Creating Wikipedia is fundamentally a political act. It subscribes to views like information should be free, amateurs can compete with professionals in information compilation, articles should attempt to neutrally represent the facts, etc. These are all ideological views, many of them controversial. Why should we succumb to moral relativism when deciding on how wikipedians ought to collaborate, when we don't subscribe to moral relativism in other aspects of the creation of wikipedia. To put another way: being neutral in article content doesn't imply that we have to be neutral in literally every organizatiinal aspect. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  You have a part about solidarity being expected as if it could be enforced. Completely ridiculous. Solidarity with whom? So, I expect you are some high official of Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Wikipedia was not political act to enforce behavior, it was an act to share information in good faith. And that goal is endangered by multiple interests I don't feel guarded against those with this set of rules. What about people investing money to adjust their own pages? It isn't even mentioned and perhaps one of the most immediate issues. I was an amateur contributor 6 or 7 years ago but lost interest at some point. I don't know if you even can get bullied on Wikipedia, I am sure it is possible, but that is probably not an issue for most contributors. No comment on the Nazi stuff, just be aware that some Jews would noticed your misplaced usage of "we" if you really want to make an argument in their name.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    > You have a part about solidarity being expected as if it could be enforced. Completely ridiculous. Solidarity with whom? Well for starters, solidarity with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose (and equivalents in other langs). The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_enc... talks extensively about how a certain baseline of alignment is needed to contribute to Wikipedia. > So, I expect you are some high official of Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Umm no. I've been around Wikimedia for a while and have opinions. At most, I am a contributor to the MediaWiki open source project, which may give me some clout in certain technical conversations - but this is definitely not a technical conversation. (Full disclaimer - in the past i used to be employed as a contractor by WMF to do work on MediaWiki, but haven't been for several months now. My views are purely my own) > What about people investing money to adjust their own pages? It isn't even mentioned and perhaps one of the most immediate issues. Why would it be mentioned in this document - its off topic and is already extensively covered by other rules and policies. Trying to cover all things in one document would probably doom it to failure. > No comment on the Nazi stuff, just be aware that some Jews would noticed your misplaced usage of "we" if you really want to make an argument in their name. I don't understand what you mean by this. The antecedent of "we" in my comment was Wikipedians. Note that this example wasn't purely hypothetical.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      The links don't talk about solidarity. Wouldn't you agree that forcing solidarity wouldn't work? Baseline of alignment fits exactly the arguments of Nazi against cultural participation of Jews. It is plain gatekeeping you try to enforce in my opinion. Perhaps it is a misjudgment, but I believe not.
      - bawolff 6y ago
        > The links don't talk about solidarity. Wouldn't you agree that forcing solidarity wouldn't work? They talk about solidarity of purpose. To quote the definition of solidarity: "A bond of unity or agreement between individuals, united around a common goal..." https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/solidarity https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/solidarity I would also point out that "solidarity" was not my choice of wording.
hkt 6y ago
Hardly upper class. I don't really mind imposing values that promote individuals being respected and happy on countries which routinely crush difference as a matter of culture and policy. It is not a bad thing. Call it imperialism if you wish, but if you do you'll be missing the key thing about imperialism, which is that it is exploitative. Wiki having standards exploits nobody.

by Mizza 6y ago

bawolff 6y ago

Of course there is not a universal value system. If you asked someone from nazi germany how they felt about jewish people editing wikipedia, they would probably respond negatively. Does it follow that we should care? Creating Wikipedia is fundamentally a political act. It subscribes to views like information should be free, amateurs can compete with professionals in information compilation, articles should attempt to neutrally represent the facts, etc. These are all ideological views, many of them controversial. Why should we succumb to moral relativism when deciding on how wikipedians ought to collaborate, when we don't subscribe to moral relativism in other aspects of the creation of wikipedia. To put another way: being neutral in article content doesn't imply that we have to be neutral in literally every organizatiinal aspect. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

raxxorrax 6y ago
You have a part about solidarity being expected as if it could be enforced. Completely ridiculous. Solidarity with whom? So, I expect you are some high official of Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Wikipedia was not political act to enforce behavior, it was an act to share information in good faith. And that goal is endangered by multiple interests I don't feel guarded against those with this set of rules. What about people investing money to adjust their own pages? It isn't even mentioned and perhaps one of the most immediate issues. I was an amateur contributor 6 or 7 years ago but lost interest at some point. I don't know if you even can get bullied on Wikipedia, I am sure it is possible, but that is probably not an issue for most contributors. No comment on the Nazi stuff, just be aware that some Jews would noticed your misplaced usage of "we" if you really want to make an argument in their name.
- bawolff 6y ago
  > You have a part about solidarity being expected as if it could be enforced. Completely ridiculous. Solidarity with whom? Well for starters, solidarity with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose (and equivalents in other langs). The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_enc... talks extensively about how a certain baseline of alignment is needed to contribute to Wikipedia. > So, I expect you are some high official of Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Umm no. I've been around Wikimedia for a while and have opinions. At most, I am a contributor to the MediaWiki open source project, which may give me some clout in certain technical conversations - but this is definitely not a technical conversation. (Full disclaimer - in the past i used to be employed as a contractor by WMF to do work on MediaWiki, but haven't been for several months now. My views are purely my own) > What about people investing money to adjust their own pages? It isn't even mentioned and perhaps one of the most immediate issues. Why would it be mentioned in this document - its off topic and is already extensively covered by other rules and policies. Trying to cover all things in one document would probably doom it to failure. > No comment on the Nazi stuff, just be aware that some Jews would noticed your misplaced usage of "we" if you really want to make an argument in their name. I don't understand what you mean by this. The antecedent of "we" in my comment was Wikipedians. Note that this example wasn't purely hypothetical.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    The links don't talk about solidarity. Wouldn't you agree that forcing solidarity wouldn't work? Baseline of alignment fits exactly the arguments of Nazi against cultural participation of Jews. It is plain gatekeeping you try to enforce in my opinion. Perhaps it is a misjudgment, but I believe not.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      > The links don't talk about solidarity. Wouldn't you agree that forcing solidarity wouldn't work? They talk about solidarity of purpose. To quote the definition of solidarity: "A bond of unity or agreement between individuals, united around a common goal..." https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/solidarity https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/solidarity I would also point out that "solidarity" was not my choice of wording.

hkt 6y ago

Hardly upper class. I don't really mind imposing values that promote individuals being respected and happy on countries which routinely crush difference as a matter of culture and policy. It is not a bad thing. Call it imperialism if you wish, but if you do you'll be missing the key thing about imperialism, which is that it is exploitative. Wiki having standards exploits nobody.