After reading some of the comments in the arbitration process discussed on this page (see: “Administrator desysopped after RfA comment, arb case in progress”) I would find it hard for anyone to argue, with a straight face, that the most active members of the community do not lean towards a common political ideology.
Whether that influences the quality of the articles, particularly new ones, I cannot say; I was banned as an admin and editor years ago and have zero desire to return. (Although I am wondering if I might enjoy working on some of the non-English wikis, having seen that their communities seem far less internally combatative.)
> FWIW, here's the comment that led to Athaenara getting desysopped, and it amounts to a direct personal attack on an admin candidate for the sole reason that they're trans:
If females are underrepresented among admins, and the comment is factually correct in saying that the representation of women consists mostly of trans women, isn't the trans status of the candidate directly relevant to whether you actually are improving representation? I'm not sure how pointing this out qualifies as a personal attack (which isn't to say the comment isn't problematic in other ways).
Suppose black people are underrepresented among admins, and in trying to increase that representation, they nominate a transracial person who was born white but identifies as black, wouldn't their transracial status be a relevant consideration?
Transracialism isn't as widely accepted, despite the fact that both gender and race are "social constructs", and I think this makes it clear that "trans" status can sometimes be relevant in such questions. If they can be considered for a role because of their trans status, then they can also be rejected from a role because of their trans status.
> It's almost impossible that that could be true based on demographics (50% vs around ~0.5% for women vs trans women)
It would be almost impossible if admin membership were drawn completely randomly from the population. It would also be impossible for over 80% of computer science graduates to be male given the same assumption. Computer science is observably dominated by males though, therefore perhaps membership isn't drawn completely randomly from the population in either case.
I'm not privy to the demographics of Wikipedia's admin membership so I don't know if the comment in question is factually accurate, my point is only that it doesn't follow from the comment alone that it's prejudicial against trans people or that it constituted a direct personal attack.
At least, it's not more prejudicial than accounting for race or gender in a positive context, since some people think any consideration of these factors, positive or negative, is unjustly prejudicial.
I can simultaneously think that’s an abhorrent comment while also pointing out that the vast majority of the arguments (on both sides) regarding her ban were based on her beliefs, not her actions, which is counter to how these processes are supposed to unfold.
I think her action here is to represent her beliefs by submitting an oppositional vote based purely on her ideology and not the actions of the candidate. It makes sense that the ideology is also debated?
This comment section has proven you right. HN: We don't tolerate mindless repetitive criticism of programming languages, we do tolerate mindless repetitive criticism of people.
(I'm referring to the manual reduction of the rank of an article mocking go)
I believe the complaint was that the female representative team had a majority of trans people, so less of a personal attack and more of a general comment about the team.
There's no such "space" at all. This whole idea that trans women are somehow monopolizing spaces that "rightfully belong" to cis women is just a transphobic, hateful slur; especially so when the attack is so clearly targeted at a single, vulnerable trans person. The block was absolutely warranted; it was an egregious violation of a "no personal attacks" rule that's been there since the beginning.
Not going to entertain the plenty of your tangents, just going to say this:
you are wrong, obviously these spaces exist and I'm confident this comment refers to such one, because the context makes sense this way (Occam's Razor), so the block was not warranted at all, not even in the slightest.
> I would find it hard for anyone to argue, with a straight face, that the most active members of the community do not lean towards a common political ideology.
I believe it, but then let's not pretend it is otherwise. Let's not have people fund projects under the false pretence of keep servers online.
> Whether that influences the quality of the articles, particularly new ones, I cannot say
With zero intention of doing so, over time, people's political ideologies will bleed into the content. The organization itself will become more and more hostile towards opposing views.
The neutral topics themselves still have merit, but I suspect not for much longer. We no longer can have an article about master-slave buses without bringing up slavery [1], for example.
I mean, in an article about terminology I would expect to see how is that terminology evolving, and it is undeniable that a lot of entities are moving away from it. Doesn't matter whether you and I agree on the move or not, but it's a reality and it's appropriate to discuss it in that article.
Also, Wikipedia has a lot of pride in being factual, avoiding judgements of value, and backing with already established sources. I think that makes it really hard for ideologies to bleed into content.
Honestly, it seems like one of the main [1] motivations for anyone participate on Wikipedia is to push some ideology or another. I know they theoretically have rules against it, but those are invariably enforced inconsistently and/or only against the most blatant cases.
IMHO, some prime Wikipedia skills are finding bureaucratic cover and being deliberately mute about your motives.
For reference, here's the comment that was deemed sufficient grounds to be desysopped.
> # '''Oppose.''' I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care. – [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ]] 00:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
Except 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.
Indeed, 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.
this 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?
There are power users with more privileges like being able to lock controversial articles, revert defaced articles, and stuff. Those people apply for the position.
I think she using "male" and "female" to refer to sex. In which case, this would be a true statement, regardless of one's opinion on the validity of 'gender identity' as a concept.
Kinda. It's different for different people. Many trans women take hormones hoping they'll help them look like a typical gender-conforming cisgender woman.
One other really common reason is that they are deeply upset by and experience dysphoria due to the effects of masculine puberty, and use hormones and surgery to match their body to how they feel it should be. It helps them feel comfortable in their own skin.
I saw a comic from a trans woman once who had recently started hormones, who noticed she had a miserable mood for a few days every couple of weeks for no apparent reason. She marked them on her calendar and found that it was always the couple of days before her HRT shots. She switched from shots every 14 days to every 10 days, and that fixed it up. So it seems that for trans people, HRT isn't just cosmetic, but has a direct effect on mental well-being that's independent of any noticed physical changes.
Unless they're used in a discussion specifically about human biology, "male" and "female" can be assumed to refer to gender. The terminology isn't neatly separated, unfortunately.
It depends on context. A discussion about "female singers" would probably be referring to gender.
It's useful to have an adjective equivalent of "man" and "woman", so people use "male" and "female" to mean that. My main point isn't to establish one meaning as more common, but to point out that there's not one "correct" meaning. Terminology around sex and gender are not neatly divided and it's not always easily determined what meaning people are using.
> Male is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm, which fuses with the larger female gamete, or ovum, in the process of fertilization.
> Female is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction.
Whether that influences the quality of the articles, particularly new ones, I cannot say; I was banned as an admin and editor years ago and have zero desire to return. (Although I am wondering if I might enjoy working on some of the non-English wikis, having seen that their communities seem far less internally combatative.)