Category talk:Wikipedians by politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Categories for discussion This category was nominated for deletion, renaming or merging with another category on 2005 December 18.

The result of the discussion was keep.
Categories for discussion This category was nominated for deletion, renaming or merging with another category on 2006 January 4.

The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Categories for discussion This category was nominated for deletion, renaming or merging with another category on 2006 June 19.

The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Split category?

I would like to propose this category be split. There has been considerable debate over the democrat template on if the template and associated category represents those who believe in democracy or those who support the US Democratic Party.

How about splitting the current "Wikipedians by politics" category into "Category:Wikipedians by political belief" and "Category:Wikipedians by political affiliation"? The belief category would continue to have sub-categories such as "Category:Democratic Wikipedians" and "Category:Liberal Wikipedians". The affiliation category could have sub-categories such as "Category:US Democratic Party Wikipedians", "Category:US Republican Party Wikipedians", and "Category:UK Labor Party Wikipedians". This will hopefully avoid some of the confusion and edit wars which have been going on lately. --StuffOfInterest 14:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh?--HereToHelp (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand and tend to agree. For example, the Cateogroy for Republican Wikipedians refers to those who have Republican values (all two of them) not for those who are memebrs of the US Republican party BUT, the Category for Democratic Wikipedians is for the party, so members of the Republican aprtrty are left out in the cold and those who adopt an idealogy in favor of democratic values are without a category too.Gator (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the category should be split. I would elaborate, but I have to go and eat. Good day! firenexx 22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Due to the current issues being discussed in several places regarding user boxes and user categories, I'm backing away from this for a while. If anyone cares to know more they can read about it on my talk page. --StuffOfInterest 18:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A danger of voting factions.

There's a fear that these cats will be used to subvert NPOV, see a deletion request. Any ideas on what to do when it does happen, or what happened when it did? — Jeandré, 2005-12-30t11:11z

With all due respect to Jimbo, those fears are... baseless, to put it politely. Voting factions happen with or without categories; all the category does is even the field. Like it or not, we have votes on things here at Wikipedia. No matter what else happens, people interested in the outcome of a vote will attempt to get like-minded people to go vote. This is natural and legitimate; expecting otherwise is a misinterpretation of human nature worthy of Karl Marx's idiocy in that regard. Now, this can either be allowed by the rules or it will simply be done underhandedly, which in my opinion holds far more danger than these categories. Do you really want people organizing off-site for votes where they can't be seen? If voter recruitment occurs, it's far better that it be done in the open. Rogue 9 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's quote

I'm going to disagree with Kbdank71 on this. I think the quote is relevant to Wikipedia's mission, and is a fairly reasonable compromise between the kill-all-userboxes faction and the userboxes-are-harmless faction. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it should be on the talk page and I assumed he moved it, but he just blanked it so here it is.Gator (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

He didn't blank it, other users have. Check your history [1]. I actually somehow assumed that it had originally been placed here by some other user quoting JW, but now I see it was his own edit. That only strengthens my opinion on this matter. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment from Jimbo: I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WHOA this is callous, snarky and distatesful?! "Oops, this has been moved to the talk page, see talk." You gotta be kidding! How about a little AGF here?! I thought he hadn't seen that it was moved to the talk page and simply put it back with an explanation, good Lord! Making me regret votign for your re-admining. Relax! Jeez...Gator (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just read my messages, in which a user request that I come here to clean up this little mess. However, upon arrival, what do I see? That kind of attitude isn't acceptable. Try practising half of what you preach.
With respect to the issue at hand, the quote from Jimbo should be worked into the category page somewhre, along with a warning that factionalising is not approved of, and that Wikipedians ought to avoid forming voting blocs or cults; that it's just a bit of fun intended to augment the community spirit which does good for the encyclopedia.
To the last point; what a ridiculous tactic. You think I'm going to care about a failed nomination to a position which seems to have attracted all too much flak as of late? With WP:RFA as messed up as it is? With people running around demanding the desysopping of any admin who doesn't organise and receive a 100% vote in support of what ought to be a discretionary application of the use of a few buttons? Adminship is no big deal, and your implied threat really doesn't bother me. Rob Church (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was informed that your "snarky" crtique was not directed at me but at KDBank71, I hope that's true. Please let me know if it was. However, from what you have to say above, ti actually looks like it was. If that's the case, you, of all people, have some nerve coming on here and declaring that it's my atttitue that's the problem. You gotta be kidding. You make some nasty comments that (at least) seem directed at me after I make harmless good faith edit, I respond without nearly as much nastiness and express my distataste for your attitude when i did nothing that deserved it and you come on here and declare that my attitude isn't acceptable? WOW. You can go on and one about where you think the Jimbo quote should go, I don't really care about that issue and have no opinion, so that's not the "issue at hand" here. I simply moved it back to talk because I thought you didnt realized it had been moved already. You clearly failed to AGF and opened fire on me and came back with some nasty remarks about me and that wasn't right! Instead of apologizing when you realized the msitake, you go on with it and dig an even deeper hole for yourself. If your initial edit summary was directed at me, Id like to know why you clearly failed (a policy I'm sure you're very familair with) and I'd expect and deserve an apology. You were way out of line for someone who has been here as long as you have. Gator (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Knowledge" will never be neutral, and neither will authorship. Consider that the ppl editing this page have internet access and enough time to write. In relative terms, we are !incredibly! privileged and wealthy...so there already is quite the inbuilt bias at work. -Mego'brien

"The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever." Actually, "we" do (to some extent) on talkpages, it can also affect various othe things, like attitudes towards other users edits, there is actaully a userbox that is realted to my point:

This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned.
Get it, that userbox User freedom was created by Hexagon1 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), probably in response to the comment from Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). Myrtone

[edit] Where's Fascism?

I find it extremely undemocratic that Fascism is not listed as a potential socio-political interest for Wikipedians. Yes I was kidding about the "undemocratic" part, but I personally am of the Fascist cloth, and no I am not racist or anti-semitic those are not within the Fascist doctrine. In any case I don't know why the original Fascist category for Wikipedians was deleted and find it wrong. Piecraft 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion #3

This nomination occurred, and after a week and change, we're not quite arrived at a decision about how to handle user categories. Some suggest getting rid of all belief/opinion-based categories, some suggest keeping them all, and some suggest a process of migrating belief-based categories over to a system of interest-based categories, with the particulars as yet undetermined. Does that bring us up to date? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for deletion, and responses

Discussion The following lists of arguments for or against deleting (or migrating/renaming) this category and its subcategories is an attempt to organize the main arguments being advanced for deletion, keeping and/or migrating, to assist editors in making decisions. Please improve it, in order to show each argument at its very best. Please try to state arguments in as neutral terms as possible, and try to avoid prejudicial and emotive language, which can distract from the content. Please thread responses using multiple bullets (*** as a response to **, etc).

[edit] Factionalism

  • User categories by politics encourage factionalism.
  • However, they also encourage pluralism, and prove that Wikipedia is a tolerant place that is open for many different people with various opinions.

[edit] Cats vs. AGF

  • User categories by politics encourage the assumption of bad faith when seen by an editor with an opposing point of view.
    • But, we should be able to work with people of differing points of view. Wikipedia is not censored to protect the sensibilities of intolerant editors.
      • Removal of the categories doesn't make it impossible to work with people of differing points of view — as long as the userboxes are there (subst'd or not), you can see from a user's page how he wishes to be identified. It makes it more difficult to seek out people with differing points of view if you don't know who they are.

[edit] "Vote-stacking"

  • User categories by politics enable "vote-stacking".
  • There may be much better solutions (rather than deletion) to adress this problem such as the one I have proposed on the main discussion. Tal :) 10:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete

  • User categories by politics are less encyclopedic than user categories by editing interest and should be obsoleted by them.

[edit] No encyclopedic value

  • User categories by politics are not useful for building an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a free webhost.
    • Pretty much all the arguments for keeping are responses to this.
    • This position only holds water if robots build the Wikipedia. In reality, people do. And people have interests and biases. The ideal and trend of social networking should not be lost on the Wikipedia while understood by most other projects. To say, "when you come in here, forget who you are and build up content like a nice little drone" almost sounds corporatistic in nature. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 00:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a pretty bad mischaracterization/misunderstanding of the argument, as I see it. It's an assertion of what people in favor of deletion "really think", made with no attempt to actually understand where the people in favor of deletion are actually coming from, by doing something like trying to understand, or engaging thm in an honest dialogue. Also, this argument conflates the issue of user categorization with all kinds of expression of potential bias, which is either a careless accident, or an intentionallly prejudicial form of argument. I suggest we take some time to try and truly understand one another, rather than tearing up what we assume are the arguments being thrown around. Stevie, are you open to finding out what those in favor of deletion really think, or are you happy with your assumption? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Whilst this might not be overwhelmingly relevant, I believe that Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia, it is also a community. I feel that categories such as this form a picture of other users, which, whilst not beneficial in an encyclopedic sense, helps to strengthen the community. Abcdefghijklm 08:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More?

[edit] Arguments for keeping, and responses

[edit] Disclosure of bias/POV

[edit] Soliciting views from a certain perspective

[edit] Proving NPOV

[edit] Freedom of Association

The existence of user categories will help Wikipedia contributors establish associations and develop articles in depth pertaining to specific focus of interest. This is useful to show good faith in political issues provided all contributions are presented in a NPOV method, provided all viewpoints are represented. As Wikipedia is watched by all, this is not a problem. Contributors from all walks of life will express opinion on material presented, and this is anticipated. JungleCat 05:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of expression

[edit] Community building

[edit] More?

[edit] Arguments for migrating/renaming, and responses

[edit] Eencourages a spirit of cooperation, thoughtfulness and neutrality

[edit] More?

[edit] Fascist Category deleted

I still do not see why every other political and philosophical category is allowed to exist for users such as Communist and Anarchy, whereas Fascism is deleted because it was considered "divisive" - I find it appalling that on Wikipedia such unfairness is possible. I will not re-create the category but I find it ironic that a project which is a proponent of so-called "democracy" and "liberalism" has managed to rid a simple category for Fascism so as users are free to represent and identify themselves as Fascist. You might as well do away with the entire political category for users then if you're concerned by separatism. Piecraft 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians by Politics I. Several subcategories of this category are nominated here, and this is part of a plan that will potentially result in many more nominations in the future. I thought I would mention this here as a courtesy to those who have this page on their watchlist. --Random832 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Category_talk%7EWikipedians_by_politics_c0d2.html"