4 ms·

I think you are responding to this passage from the article? > The Wikimedia Foundation has in the recent past cited the fate of George Floyd and the resulting

I think you are responding to this passage from the article? > The Wikimedia Foundation has in the recent past cited the fate of George Floyd and the resulting Black Lives Matter protests as its inspiration for the Knowledge Equity Fund, a $4.5 million fund set up last year to support racial equity initiatives outside the Wikimedia movement. It has declared "We stand for racial justice"… Taking a step back, I wonder what things count as a "political alignment". Like, in general. Is, say, being "against murder" a poltical alignment? Or being for "being kind to people"? Probably not. So, back to this passage, what aspects strike you as a "political alignment", and why? Is being against racism a "political alignment", or perhaps it becomes so when expressed with the term "racial justice"? Are all "moral values" also "political alignments", are these things the same or different? I think they are not quite the same, although probably have overlap. And people can and do certainly disagree on moral values too. But I don't think we would suggest people, including people working on an encyclopedia, either can or should be without "moral values". Where is the boundary at which it becomes a "political alignment"? One obvious one to me, and what I first think of when I hear "political alignment", is supporting a particular political party or candidate or other electoral cause. I don't think wikipedia does that, and generally I don't think it should. (Although even here... supporting or opposing the literal 1930s German Nazi Party, in the 1930s, would I suppose, actually indeed be a "political alignment", but... now that makes me think I wouldn't always want to put "political alignment" off the table either. It may be impossible to act morally in the world without some political alignment... but I still don't want wikipedia supporting particular US parties or candidates -- mainly because it would put into question the fairness or truth-goals of it's articles. I'm honestly not sure where the line is.)

veltas 5y ago
Yes, I have found that being "against murder" is political and a matter of political alignment. Especially since the definition of what is murder, or who is protected by murder laws, and the punishments for murder are all controversial. For example, if you believe that fetuses are living humans then you would tend to argue that arguing against abortion was arguing against murder. Where you stand on the death penalty could make you believe the state murders, or the state does not seriously punish murderers. Similarly, whether or not you think specific instances of deaths at the hands of police are murder is political. For example, the nature of acceptable violence in self-defense is controversial (in the US particularly), and the acceptable nature of force used by police is controversial too. And the brand of "Black Lives Matter" does not exist in a vacuum, it been used over a number of years, by many different people, and has become associated (whether these are 'core tenets' or potentially misattributed) with a number of controversial stances, for example anarchist principles, support of disorder, vandalism, violence, revolution, etc. This might be surprising to some, but it is familiar to others. If someone criticizes or dislikes the movement with that context, then are they necessarily dismissive of police brutality against blacks, do they feel blacks don't deserve the same safety as others?
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  I'm not sure we're talking about the same things here. I assume you don't really think that wikipedia shouldn't say, just in general, that they are opposed to murdering people, because it's a "political alignment"? But ok, are you saying that being opposed to racism in itself isn't an inappropriate "political alignment", but using the words "Black Lives Matter" is? No, I don't think that if someone critisizes or dislikes the movement "within that context" they are necessarily dismissive of police brutality against Black people or feel Black people don't deserve the same safety as others. (I do think they are mistaken about some things). But do you think... refraining from critisizing the movement under that name is a "political alignment" that is inappropriate for wikipedia? I'm trying to understand what part of what wikipedia has done you think is an inappropriate "political alignment" for them.
  - veltas 5y ago
    I didn't say anything about what Wikipedia should and shouldn't say. I was just responding to what you said because I think it's an interesting question whether something as broad as "murdering people" could be political, and as I say I do think it is political, or that people will reliably interpret it that way. If the question is very literally whether murder in a broad sense is bad, it wouldn't be political, no, but it would still be interpreted politically probably. There is always context. Even broad movements like 60's "peace" movements have had political undertones. It's not in favor or against them to say they're political; but I think it does mean companies and organisations should expect simultaneously annoying and encourage different groups whenever they support movements that seem in their name or basic statement to be fair or innocuous like this.
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      > I didn't say anything about what Wikipedia should and shouldn't say. Well, of course you did, didn't you? I thought you said in your original comment that saying certain things indicated wikipedia was politically aligned, and you wouldn't like them to be politically aligned. That's what I was trying to get more info about, what sorts of utterances you thought indicated or led to an inappropriate political alignment for wikipedia. I think? Am I misunderstanding? These conversations often somehow do seem like we're speaking different languages, that's why I was trying to get clarification. I'm not following the grammar of "companies and organiations should expect simultaneously annoying and encourage different groups whenever they support movements that seem in their name or basic statement to be fair or innocuous like this", I lost the meaning of that sentence, sorry. Missing a word maybe? I agree there are interesting questions here.
5560675260 5y ago
I am unclear on where a line should be drawn (or would at least have to do a lot of introspection to figure it out). But any push for equity? From my perspective it's very much outside of scope of "being kind to people" and in the political/controversial territory. Putting any narrowing term before "justice" is a political move and explicitly not "against racism".

veltas 5y ago

Yes, I have found that being "against murder" is political and a matter of political alignment. Especially since the definition of what is murder, or who is protected by murder laws, and the punishments for murder are all controversial. For example, if you believe that fetuses are living humans then you would tend to argue that arguing against abortion was arguing against murder. Where you stand on the death penalty could make you believe the state murders, or the state does not seriously punish murderers. Similarly, whether or not you think specific instances of deaths at the hands of police are murder is political. For example, the nature of acceptable violence in self-defense is controversial (in the US particularly), and the acceptable nature of force used by police is controversial too. And the brand of "Black Lives Matter" does not exist in a vacuum, it been used over a number of years, by many different people, and has become associated (whether these are 'core tenets' or potentially misattributed) with a number of controversial stances, for example anarchist principles, support of disorder, vandalism, violence, revolution, etc. This might be surprising to some, but it is familiar to others. If someone criticizes or dislikes the movement with that context, then are they necessarily dismissive of police brutality against blacks, do they feel blacks don't deserve the same safety as others?

jrochkind1 5y ago
I'm not sure we're talking about the same things here. I assume you don't really think that wikipedia shouldn't say, just in general, that they are opposed to murdering people, because it's a "political alignment"? But ok, are you saying that being opposed to racism in itself isn't an inappropriate "political alignment", but using the words "Black Lives Matter" is? No, I don't think that if someone critisizes or dislikes the movement "within that context" they are necessarily dismissive of police brutality against Black people or feel Black people don't deserve the same safety as others. (I do think they are mistaken about some things). But do you think... refraining from critisizing the movement under that name is a "political alignment" that is inappropriate for wikipedia? I'm trying to understand what part of what wikipedia has done you think is an inappropriate "political alignment" for them.
- veltas 5y ago
  I didn't say anything about what Wikipedia should and shouldn't say. I was just responding to what you said because I think it's an interesting question whether something as broad as "murdering people" could be political, and as I say I do think it is political, or that people will reliably interpret it that way. If the question is very literally whether murder in a broad sense is bad, it wouldn't be political, no, but it would still be interpreted politically probably. There is always context. Even broad movements like 60's "peace" movements have had political undertones. It's not in favor or against them to say they're political; but I think it does mean companies and organisations should expect simultaneously annoying and encourage different groups whenever they support movements that seem in their name or basic statement to be fair or innocuous like this.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    > I didn't say anything about what Wikipedia should and shouldn't say. Well, of course you did, didn't you? I thought you said in your original comment that saying certain things indicated wikipedia was politically aligned, and you wouldn't like them to be politically aligned. That's what I was trying to get more info about, what sorts of utterances you thought indicated or led to an inappropriate political alignment for wikipedia. I think? Am I misunderstanding? These conversations often somehow do seem like we're speaking different languages, that's why I was trying to get clarification. I'm not following the grammar of "companies and organiations should expect simultaneously annoying and encourage different groups whenever they support movements that seem in their name or basic statement to be fair or innocuous like this", I lost the meaning of that sentence, sorry. Missing a word maybe? I agree there are interesting questions here.

5560675260 5y ago

I am unclear on where a line should be drawn (or would at least have to do a lot of introspection to figure it out). But any push for equity? From my perspective it's very much outside of scope of "being kind to people" and in the political/controversial territory. Putting any narrowing term before "justice" is a political move and explicitly not "against racism".