From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I removed:

No acknowledgement of the existence of a community point of view, i.e. systemic bias which is shared by those who view themselves as a virtual community. Despite their claims to openness, the Wikipedia community seems quite determined to pretend that they are "inherently neutral" or have no POV or something. As an example of the systemic denial, several attempts to start a discussion of such issues on Meta-Wikipedia have been attacked, deleted, etc. In fact, users Erik Moeller and "Angela" recently agreed that only the community point of view should even be permitted on Meta, with every dissenter forced to reveal "their real name" to attach to positions that dissented. This of course would put these dissenters in positions of very extreme weakness. Most importantly, the idea that systemic bias is something to be enforced, not balanced has taken root, thanks to advocates of sysop vigilantism - who were destroying and damaging essays presenting alternative views even in advance of discussion of this policy point. Of course, this is detrimental in the extreme to the integrity of the project.

since it does not reflect the community point of view, and because it refers to specific cases that will date rapidly.

UninvitedCompany 18:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

What an ironic edit, I'm changing it back since it's endorsing the same form of appeal to popularity logical fallacy that the paragraph describes. - 06:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


I propose abbreviations. Ex: Computer Assisted Biologically Augmented Lifeform (CABAL). -- とある白い猫 chi? 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)