Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/World citizens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and the consensus was keep: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World Citizen
The phrasing was giving the impression to me that one could only be free from prejudices if one was not linked to a specific faith or ideology. I think we all have our own ideologies, even if we don't believe in a supernatural higher knowledge revealed through others. Just because our ideologies may have been subconsciously shaped by the culture around us (and not always formally adopted) does not mean that we lack a system of belief about the world and ourselves. Brettz9 05:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Overlap with Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world?
While searching for this page, I noticed Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world, which was created a little before this project was. Maybe it has less obvious inward links.
Should we try to merge, or is there a useful distinction to be made?
Robin Patterson 05:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] International Auxiliary Language
When I started this page, the intent was for a SINGULAR international auxiliary language to be chosen by the governments of the world. It was not meant to restrict people, before such a choice might be made in the future by our world leaders, who didn't like constructed languages. Since this was the original intent of this aspect of the page, if you don't like this more open idea (I'm puzzled why someone would support constructed languages but not a democratic decision which could end up in their official endorsement (if not an existing language)), then I suggest you move your name to the "admit some of the agenda" section. Given the comments against IAL's, I tend to think MORE people would support the eventual decision by our leaders being open-ende. Brettz9 23:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever your intent, Brettz9, your language did not contain it. In part, this is a matter of principle: if you invite people to sign something, you cannot change it after they have done so. In part, this is a matter of policy. I do not think a decision made by world “leaders” will be democratic any time soon, since so many of them are not democratically elected, and even if they are all representative, it is still sounding like an imposition — leaders in consultation with scholars. I do not think that an auxiliary language should be imposed. And I also do not understand your references to constructed languages, since I certainly was not indicating support for them. The most democratic thing would be to let the process go forward as is: every individual can choose to participate or not in the building of a consensus, with some of us more enthusiastic. I am enthusiastic; but I do not appreciate your modification after the fact of what I was saying.
— Ford 23:50, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of this being a matter of policy. I would think that people could monitor the site as you have done, and make any changes later accordingly. I mean, this is wiki after all....But if this in fact the policy, then I apologize, but ask that you please remove the pluralizing you have added, as it was not there originally either.
On another note, if government decisions are perceived to be inherently "imposing" (even if they are based on campaigns built from the ground up to promote a given standardized decision such as this one), then I would think that such people would not sign up on this page, given the support for a strengthened U.N. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] 04:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And my apologies; it looks like the same thing was done to you. In fact, the biggest change in sense seems to have been made in Eequor’s edit, and she did not even sign the list. Perhaps it was an unintentional result of an innocent attempt to wikify, as the edit summary says. But the original was much more inclusive, less exacting as to what ‘world citizen’ implies. That was also where the plural was inserted for international auxiliary languages. It seems that Eequor did not understand the fundamental change in meaning that was being imparted by that edit. There would not even have been a need for the sympathizer category under the earlier wording. I would support undoing that fundamental change, leaving the page with a flavor of ambiguity and self-definition. On the other hand, I doubt that I can speak for all those who have added their names to the list since then. A quandary. Any thoughts, anyone?
— Ford 12:22, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
[edit] Genders
"Belief in the basic equality of all genders" - do we have more than two? - Sikon 07:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
