User talk:Matthewyoung

Pandering

I can't allow obvious pandering such as a disclaimer template in any kind of wide use throughout the project, as it conflicts with what is understood to be its purpose. The changes to the memes page, which are ongoing represent about the limit I am willing to go in that direction.

It would be great if you could edit in such a way that I don't have to bulk revert good edits with bad ones, as I am suffering with a condition that limits screen time, and can't sift through it all. Simply replacing SJW with liberal, or SJW with anti isn't feasible. In some cases "liberal-left antis" might suffice, or "liberal left" with "otherwise inclusive conceptions of social justice and identity".

Contributing articles on alternative texts is also an important part of becoming an editor here. There is much that still needs to be written on, to allow MAPs and Allies of all persuasions to find something on here that fits with their worldview and experience. --The Admins (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"SJW" is such a powerful, well-recognized term, that it directs attention of the reader. I would suggest using it in quotations at select points to do just that. --The Admins (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

How does a disclaimer template conflict with the understood (by whom?) purpose of the project? Please consider if you are allowing your own personal views to get in the way of creating a resource that's as effective and influential as it could be (and needs to be), keeping in mind some of us may have attractions that are more deeply stigmatized than yours and thus feel more urgency about all this. Reaching different audiences with varying perspectives REQUIRES we create the proper distancing between ourselves and controversial political views not inherently related to our issue.

My politics are well known. My goal is not to inject them needlessly into the project. My goal is to allow my unique perspective to help us reach certain audiences in ways others would be unable to. That's why I see the contributions of every single person on our team as valuable and why I think it's so damaging when people leave our collective. Having watched highly productive and valuable members exit over all this I'm convinced that making my stand here and now is the best thing I can possibly do for the future of our project.

Having a single person unilaterally decide limits and make ultimatums is not a recipe for something that makes the best use of everyone's contributions. It's a recipe for amplifying one person's blind spots and shortcomings. It's not the kind of power I'd give myself and not the kind I think is wise for anyone to have. Please carefully consider some of your convictions and certainties about what's required for us to succeed.

I've about done a 180 here, going from rabidly defending Newgon to understanding that some of the criticisms of Wiki content have merit. I hope we can all demonstrate some intellectual honesty and open mindedness. I may contribute more in the way of original content in the future but I'd see it as a wasted effort as long as there's language in the wiki that instantly and needlessly discredits us with audiences we might otherwise influence.

Open to continuing this conversation in some other venue if you feel the need --Matthewyoung (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think pandering is the best solution to molding perceptions in most cases. For very carefully implemented exclusions to that rule, see my more recent editing.

I think we both know where the middle ground is, and that's value neutral language. You have made edits that mix the bad and the good. Make it easy for me, and the rest of us, and you can contribute productively as either a reactive and/or proactive editor. --The Admins (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

MAP-Wiki

I was to suggest you apply for membership at the less popular MAP-Wiki, where you could very carefully negotiate removal of misinformation in exchange for removal of criticism here, as a gesture of goodwill (all agreed prior to the editing). But unfortunately, since I formed this opinion, further developments have revealed the two main editors there to be hostile parties (as in, hostile to most members of our community) and disruptive in nature. --The Admins (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)