[Foundation-l] English Wikipedia ethnocentric policy affects other communities
michael.noda at gmail.com
Sun Dec 24 09:55:35 UTC 2006
On 12/23/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am a person. I have a name. You know me by my nick, GerardM, you may have
> deduced that I am known as Gerard Meijssen. You are not likely to know my
> full name.
Indeed. But, would I really be in a different position if you
appeared in the recent changes log as GerardM (535367), which is how
you appear on Slashdot? Does Slashdot reduce you to *just* a number,
or are you a name there as well? To me, GerardM (535367) is as much a
name as GerardM, because it's the same name.
> In the Netherlands in the second world war, people had to identify
> themselves and always have their "persoonsbewijs" with them. At the end of
> the war this was abolished. The Dutch government imposed itself by requiring
> people to have a number and then to always be able to have some form of
> identity with them. Many people resent this. I resent this. It is said that
> it promotes security while in actual fact it makes government more
> intruisive while it hardly helps .. mind you I have a background in
I see; I thought there might be a cultural difference like this at the
heart of your objection. But I reiterate my question: would imitating
Slashdot be unacceptable, and if so, why do you post there?
> The other thing that I have noticed is that in the proposals it is only the
> people from outside the English language Wikipedia who are forced to do
> things. When it is suggested that the en.wikipedia community may have to do
> things as well it is flatly rejected.
I disagree. All the proposals I've seen work symmetrically, where an
en user on zh is treated identically to a zh user on en, or a ja user
> Admins who go overboard in their heavy
> handed zeal of fighting vandalism get a blanket excuse because ``they mean
Have you been following news out of en lately? Several admins have
resigned or been forcibly desysopped by the ArbCom for overzealousness
in vandal fighting in the last few months.
> All in all, my conclusion is very much that, yes people say that the policy
> is wrong, but no they do not want to accept that things will change. This
> leads me to conclude that people in the English language Wikipedia see
> themselves as a rule onto themselves and will not really consider the
> arguments of others.
This statement is very hurtful to those of us who are en editors who
are making every effort to find an amicable solution to this
unfortunate situation. I beg you to retract or qualify it.
More information about the foundation-l