Tides Foundation is an American public charity and fiscal sponsor working to advance progressive causes and policy initiatives in areas such as the environment, health care, labor issues, immigrant rights, LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights and human rights.
While those policy areas are not in themselves necessarily negative, they have a clear political slant which is the ground associated with woke activism.
It's not obvious what it has to do with Wikimedia.
Also they sound extremely localised. As someone outside extremely wealthy and rich USA why should my money go to that sort of political organizations there. Why don't they use their own money for it?
None of those sound bad, but one organisation that tries to focus on all of them?
You'll end up trying lots of things but poorly, or find that they cross influence to make things efficient. Why work on labour issues when you can deal with women's labour issues?
And especially if they are being funded via manipulation, such as paying for Wikipedia's servers, means they would lack the oversight from donors which is not an effective way.
> They prohibit people from editing who believe child sexual activity isn't harmful[1],
From the linked page:
> Wikipedia does not tolerate inappropriate adult–child relationships. Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked and banned indefinitely.
Looks pretty sane to me? If it's only one "party" that draws this line, what are those that don't?
I haven't filled-in a profile page, and I haven't had occasion to make any edit concerning transness, sex and gender. My Wikipedia handle is a name I've used in other places, so a determined stalker could draw inferences about my views; but I haven't used the handle outside of Wikipedia for a decade.
I have opinions about the Middle East that, if expressed in my editing, would get me into trouble - but probably not banned; my edits would simply be reverted in a microsecond.
Editing with an opinion is fine; you just get reverted. Nobody bans you. You get into trouble if you try to take a stand: e.g. revert the revert, or if you take it to the talk page, or ask for admin review.
Neoliberalism is an economic viewpoint, not a sociological one.
I don't know a good word for the "safe", modern, liberal point-of-view. Perhaps that's why everyone calls it "woke", a word that I don't use, because it's usually meant as an insult. In the USA, "liberal" seems to be an insult too.
The viewpoint I'm referring to is that of educated, urban, mainly white people, who sympathize with oppressed minorities, but are scared of any kind of revolution, because they depend on capitalism.
