3 ms·
The important context here is that this is a direct reply to a trans person's application to become an admin on Wikipedia. In other words, they're not objectin
by rippercushions 4y ago
The important context here is that this is a direct reply to a trans person's application to become an admin on Wikipedia. In other words, they're not objecting to trans ideology or something, they're specifically telling a Wikipedian that they can't be an admin because they're trans.
- atdrummond 4y agoExcept the debate on the ban (which is what I was referring to - the reply itself is pretty much indefensible) became a referendum on ideology rather than a legitimate discussion on a ban due to a harmful action.
- paganel 4y ago
- ghostgost 4y agoIndeed, she is one of many women who are completely fed up of being talked over on women's issues by men who identify as women. It wasn't really the appropriate forum for her outburst, but I think many of us can empathise with the sentiment she was expressing. The subsequent overreaction to her comment kind of proved her point too.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
- chasd00 4y agothis is pretty fascinating to me, i thought the whole point of wikipedia was if you see something wrong you hit edit, fix it, and then click save. If you want to add something new the process is the same. Do you now have to pass like a virtual interview to qualify to make a change?
- stonemetal12 4y agoThere are power users with more privileges like being able to lock controversial articles, revert defaced articles, and stuff. Those people apply for the position.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y agoThis is really common all over the internet, not just wikipedia. Look who's actually dominating the reddit sub "actuallesbians": https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/actuallesbians https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/actualles...