Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Ian Ramjohn

@celesteh @tarheel I only half agree (for context, my experience is being a nonwhite Wikipedian since 2004, admin since 2005). I don’t disagree with the idea that systemic white supremacy is present throughout Wikipedia (and it’s institutionalise in reliable source policy, or really in the evil trio of verifiability, notability and reliable sources that is *also* the bulwark that keeps disinfo out)
But racism as such is much more complicated…

3 comments
Ian Ramjohn

@celesteh @tarheel On one hand, most Wikipedians are well meaning liberal(ish) people whose views uphold the patriarchy because they haven’t been asked to examine them. For ever person who feels “knowledge equity” is an outside imposition, there are several others who say “this is a great idea”. But only a handful who ask “how can I change”
That said, I think anti-Blackness is a real problem in quite a different way from “simple” racism…

Ian Ramjohn

@celesteh @tarheel Anti-Blackness plays out differently. A tech-utopian sees “bias-free application of the rules”. A person whose life experience teaches them to see racism sees the racism in those rules and pushes back. And another “difficult editor who had so much promise” is banned because they can’t follow what the established folks genuinely see as the neutral application of rules

Ian Ramjohn

@celesteh @tarheel I no longer believe in the idea of vested contributors with too much social capital to lose. So many of the editors who feel like unassailable institutions today have joined the project in recent years. And the old stalwarts continue to flame out

Go Up