- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
I think the usage of the privilege narrative should be reviewed. The recommendation text uses the word privilege 25 times, while naming the following "privileges": information, language, skill sets, accessibility, time, money, access, job. Most of these are what a lot of us call "rights", not "privileges" and it is particularly weird when these "privileges" are named in a text that reads Backlash from the privileged who will see their privileges stripped. Obviously the WG does not mean that members of the community should be stripped of their job, but the text is really messy when handling the concept. Also keep in mind that privilege theory does not enjoy a wide acceptance in other countries as it does in the United States. In my country, for example, talking about job security as a "privilege" will be frowned upon by many who have suffered repeated attacks from their employers to reduce job security, undermine the right to unionize, prepare massive layoffs, etc, while maintaining the discourse that the whole thing is about terminating unjust workers' privilege. --MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi MarioGom. I can't speak for the group and explain the language they used, but as for the origin of a theory and the US being like a default place, please keep in mind that only one member of the group comes from the North America (this means: potentially, but not necessarily, the US). SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)