4 ms·

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 officia

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.

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.