5 ms·

From the first link: >The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superi

From the first link: >The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege to create an environment that is inclusive and reflects the experiences of communities of color worldwide. What an interesting signaling statement. If you did not know what "racial equity" was, imagine trying to parse out what it is from that statement. Imagine reading this phrase out loud to anybody not already involved in this debate. Would this help them understand what "racial equity" was? If you read this statement to any of my family or friends, who live in the middle of the country, they would probably conclude that this was some sort of racist propaganda thing, and wouldn't want to talk to whoever brought it up anymore. I mean the fact that the foundation which is supposed to also be providing information to the world is also proudly publishing things like that should be pretty revelatory.

oauea 5y ago
Sure does sound like racism to me, just like Reddit's stance that you can't be racist against white people.
thrashh 5y ago
I think waaay too many people are unknowingly hanging around other people they like too much and it causes their circle to double down on crazy.
Mezzie 5y ago
I just always find it funny that 'Eurocentricity' is one of the problems, given the whole movement is AMERICA-CENTRIC as hell. We've even co-opted what being 'Eurocentric' means! Talk about arrogance!
bavell 5y ago
Absolutely 100%. I can't tell you how many companies I've lost respect for because they've hopped on the virtue-signalling PR bandwagon. It couldn't be more obvious they don't even believe what they're saying but it's in vouge these days so they plow forward anyways. The added bonus of some casual anti-white/anti-european hatred is the cherry on top.
phphphphp 5y ago
Your friends and family probably wouldn't participate in a debate about how to build an encyclopaedia that is representative of the world, not just the world according to a bunch of mostly middle class white nerds. If they did have an interest in such a debate, I am sure they would be capable of processing that statement. There's nothing intellectually controversial about Wikipedia's statement, to argue against it on the basis that it's impossible to parse seems anti-intellectual rather than... actually challenging the content of the statement. You may wish to argue that Wikipedia can simultaneously be an encyclopaedia that represents the world AND be an encyclopaedia mostly written by middle class white people, but that's a point that requires much more discussion than a hand-wavey statement about how this discussion isn't relevant to your friends and family.
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  If the content of the encyclopedia is meant to be a representation of objective facts, then why on earth could it matter what the race of the people writing it is? This sounds like straight up Nazi propaganda. The idea that races are so different that we literally inhabit separate realities is insane levels of bigotry.
  - phphphphp 5y ago
    The hyperbole isn’t helpful. As has been highlighted time and time again, Wikipedia is the work of a relatively small amount of people and there is a great deal of bias because humans suffer from bias — regardless of their intentions. “History is written by the victors” is a famous phrase a reason — facts are a representation of the information we are most confident in, not truth.
    - _Nat_ 5y ago
      "History's written by the victors" seems like a stretch that's only kinda truth-adjacent in some situations, e.g. where one side gets wiped out and there're no third-party observers, etc.. But, it doesn't hold in most cases, e.g. in World War 1 or 2, nor basically any modern war, where most of the losing side survives and tells its stories too. Heck, in the US, some folks complain about how much the loser of the American Civil War got to push its narratives. [From StackExchange's History site](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-always-written-by-the-victors https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-... ). Anyway, critique of that quote aside, how's it relevant to Wikipedia?
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
Interestingly, from the Universal Code of Conduct [1] > Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct

oauea 5y ago

Sure does sound like racism to me, just like Reddit's stance that you can't be racist against white people.

thrashh 5y ago

I think waaay too many people are unknowingly hanging around other people they like too much and it causes their circle to double down on crazy.

Mezzie 5y ago

I just always find it funny that 'Eurocentricity' is one of the problems, given the whole movement is AMERICA-CENTRIC as hell. We've even co-opted what being 'Eurocentric' means! Talk about arrogance!

bavell 5y ago

Absolutely 100%. I can't tell you how many companies I've lost respect for because they've hopped on the virtue-signalling PR bandwagon. It couldn't be more obvious they don't even believe what they're saying but it's in vouge these days so they plow forward anyways. The added bonus of some casual anti-white/anti-european hatred is the cherry on top.

phphphphp 5y ago

Your friends and family probably wouldn't participate in a debate about how to build an encyclopaedia that is representative of the world, not just the world according to a bunch of mostly middle class white nerds. If they did have an interest in such a debate, I am sure they would be capable of processing that statement. There's nothing intellectually controversial about Wikipedia's statement, to argue against it on the basis that it's impossible to parse seems anti-intellectual rather than... actually challenging the content of the statement. You may wish to argue that Wikipedia can simultaneously be an encyclopaedia that represents the world AND be an encyclopaedia mostly written by middle class white people, but that's a point that requires much more discussion than a hand-wavey statement about how this discussion isn't relevant to your friends and family.

thepasswordis 5y ago
If the content of the encyclopedia is meant to be a representation of objective facts, then why on earth could it matter what the race of the people writing it is? This sounds like straight up Nazi propaganda. The idea that races are so different that we literally inhabit separate realities is insane levels of bigotry.
- phphphphp 5y ago
  The hyperbole isn’t helpful. As has been highlighted time and time again, Wikipedia is the work of a relatively small amount of people and there is a great deal of bias because humans suffer from bias — regardless of their intentions. “History is written by the victors” is a famous phrase a reason — facts are a representation of the information we are most confident in, not truth.
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    "History's written by the victors" seems like a stretch that's only kinda truth-adjacent in some situations, e.g. where one side gets wiped out and there're no third-party observers, etc.. But, it doesn't hold in most cases, e.g. in World War 1 or 2, nor basically any modern war, where most of the losing side survives and tells its stories too. Heck, in the US, some folks complain about how much the loser of the American Civil War got to push its narratives. [From StackExchange's History site](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-always-written-by-the-victors https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-... ). Anyway, critique of that quote aside, how's it relevant to Wikipedia?

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

Interestingly, from the Universal Code of Conduct [1] > Note: The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct