4 ms·

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 m

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.
  - veltas 5y ago
    Sorry that should say "companies and organisations should expect to simultaneously annoy and encourage different groups whenever they support movements, even ones that seem in their name or basic statement to be fair or innocuous like this". I iterate what I post a lot and didn't re-read, had company. I apologise, I know that is frustrating.

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.
- veltas 5y ago
  Sorry that should say "companies and organisations should expect to simultaneously annoy and encourage different groups whenever they support movements, even ones that seem in their name or basic statement to be fair or innocuous like this". I iterate what I post a lot and didn't re-read, had company. I apologise, I know that is frustrating.