Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Rama (photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Mar-2024 08:33:40 JST Rama

   The language around Wikipedia is so depoliticised that many commentators are now confused as to what are the core values of the project (build a collaborative encyclopedia for everybody) and what are means to that end (tone neutrality in the articles).
   This is how you end up with the utterly nonsensical notion of a "politically neutral encyclopedia", which Wikipedia never tried or wanted to be: it is every bit as politically militant as the GNU project is.

   • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Rama (photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Mar-2024 08:34:31 JST Rama

     in reply to

     The far-right always obfuscates its discourse, because its aims are so abhorrent. So they push them using coded language, and rely on people acquiescing to euphemisms without understanding their implications.

     The naive Libertarian heritage of Wikipedia, a rich man's idea of progress whereby emancipation somehow happens on its own if people are civil to each others and do not protest too much, is an ideal material for fascists: the terms of the political debate are pre-obfuscated for them.

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Rama (photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Mar-2024 08:34:32 JST Rama

     in reply to

     This confusion is extremely damaging, because making the encyclopedia itself "politically neutral" is ill-defined, and in any case entails ruffling no feather. That entails sticking to obsolete and propagandist historiography, and invisibilising minorities. Which would make Wikipedia a Right-wing outlet, which is... not neutral.

     But of course reactionary militants love the idea, because that is line with their goals.

   • Embed this notice
     Rama (photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Mar-2024 08:35:22 JST Rama

     in reply to

     Wikipedia is not partisan (i.e. it is not in its mission to support any specific political party). That does absolutely not preclude having political objectives, any more than the Red Cross or United Nations do.

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Rama (photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Mar-2024 08:36:16 JST Rama

     in reply to

     I recently saw feminist and anti-racist criticism of Wikipedia which seemed to advocate for abandoning the neutrality of tone in the articles. This is making the same mistake of confusing the tone of the articles with the politics of the project itself. And if that idea gained traction, I have absolutely no confidence that it would not be the far-right that would appropriate it and turn Wikipedia into an even worse shitshow than what it is today.

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Rama (photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Mar-2024 08:37:08 JST Rama

     in reply to

     Wikipedia 20 years ago was a fringe geek website with a grandiose goal. Most of the establishment hated it.

     People from outside Wikipedia who try to analyse its current status must take its history into account.

     People from within Wikipedia must stop behaving as if the project was marginal as it was in the early 2000s, and behave responsibly as the major actor of the web that they are.

     Wikipedia used to be bullied. Now some want to turn it into a tool for bullying. That is not its mission.

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.