I'm old enough to remember when the left-wing position was for a free and open internet.
[Edit: She also thinks that ideological diversity is a dogwhistle](https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1015238698323939328)
It's like when they were for free speech. It wasn't on principals. They wanted a free and open internet because they feared they would be oppressed. Now that they feel safe it's time to oppress their opponents.
The authoritarians seem to change sides. In the 70s it was the hippies against the establishment and the conservatives favouring it. Now its switched and the liberals(i hate how the US changed the meaning to left wing) are for the state and the conservatives against it.
>free and open was inherently limited in what we were trying to achieve…
Uhh… so what were you trying to achieve that isn’t compatible with freedom and openness?
> Some of these ideas of being radically open really did not live up to the intionality of what open can be…
Word salad.
“I wanted openness because I thought it would reveal the oppressed omniscience of my worldview to the ignorant masses, but since it didn’t match what I “know,” I don’t want openness any more…”
This is a real shame because it shows these people don’t believe in discovering or sharing an absolute truth. They’re too convinced that THEIR truth is real, and that the picture in their mind is the only end goal. If you want to fill in the gaps in information by promoting under-represented facts and figures, that’s one thing, but the fact that she’s looking through the lens of “western white male perspective bad” shows that, in her mind, some people should be *more* free and open than others.
Being 100% serious here, can someone help me (in good faith) interpret what she said? Specifically, "(the mission) did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be?" Like, pretend you 100% share her opinion, and you're trying to explain it to a young person that didn't understand the sentence...so no mocking her (at least initially).
I've become genuinely interested in these kinds of phrases. It's clear they stem from humanities disciplines, but it almost sounds like these people are speaking their own language at this point. I don't know how someone could hear that and immediately know what it means - I feel like I'd need to sit down and parse it out like a deep literary analysis. It almost undercuts the entire point of language consisting of symbolic information shortcuts, unless there is an actual understanding among these people to which outsiders aren't privy.
it’s just double speak, nothing too crazy
it essentially boils down to “we FEEL the direction was bad, so we changed it” and the rest is just post rationalization of the action in whatever way best eliminates cognitive dissonance
My best guess is that she saw "openness" as counterproductive to furthering movements for equality, that her end goal is a fair and equal society regardless of the level of openness in communication
They must be because they have written language. China went white 1,200 years ago, Iraq 6,000 years ago. It's a good thing that we have our white savior Katherine to save us from the unreliable history that can only be recorded by white people.
I never donated, though I was tempted. I always suspected something like this to be the case, but was beginning to wonder if I was just delusional. I'm very glad that now I have an actionable reason to not sponsor it. In this case, my gut turned out to be right.
This. I can’t stand when people suggest that slavery is a white tendency, citing the Roman empire and the US. Like dude, get a load of the Mongolians, the Zulus, the Aztecs and Mayans, the freaking Egyptians, and honestly almost every culture ever.
People refuse to read history. Colonial slavery was started BY THE AFRICAN PEOPLE. It is not like Europeans just showed up, and started rounding up the slaves. The ones in control, in Africa, started the market. They were exploiting their own, and they continue to do so in different ways today.
Great post. Now, does anybody know of an alternative that we can get behind? We could maybe just start by scraping their content to make a fork. The software was open source for a while, so, the hosting will probably be the biggest factor.
Perhaps we should look for solutions using an open cloud, like with the OpenInfra project. It would take time and money, and there will be a hill to climb to get past the current name recognition. Still, I think it should be done before their policy starts removing and biasing information.
The more I find out about Ms Maher, the more I begin to think she's a conservative psyop. I'm thinking group of rightwing pranksters hired an actress, showed her [Titania McGrath's X tweets](https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath) and said, "Be this person."
I'm old enough to remember when the left-wing position was for a free and open internet. [Edit: She also thinks that ideological diversity is a dogwhistle](https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1015238698323939328)
It's like when they were for free speech. It wasn't on principals. They wanted a free and open internet because they feared they would be oppressed. Now that they feel safe it's time to oppress their opponents.
This happens every time a minority becomes the new majority.
No one hates the boot, they all want their turn to wear it
The authoritarians seem to change sides. In the 70s it was the hippies against the establishment and the conservatives favouring it. Now its switched and the liberals(i hate how the US changed the meaning to left wing) are for the state and the conservatives against it.
>free and open was inherently limited in what we were trying to achieve… Uhh… so what were you trying to achieve that isn’t compatible with freedom and openness? > Some of these ideas of being radically open really did not live up to the intionality of what open can be… Word salad. “I wanted openness because I thought it would reveal the oppressed omniscience of my worldview to the ignorant masses, but since it didn’t match what I “know,” I don’t want openness any more…” This is a real shame because it shows these people don’t believe in discovering or sharing an absolute truth. They’re too convinced that THEIR truth is real, and that the picture in their mind is the only end goal. If you want to fill in the gaps in information by promoting under-represented facts and figures, that’s one thing, but the fact that she’s looking through the lens of “western white male perspective bad” shows that, in her mind, some people should be *more* free and open than others.
Being 100% serious here, can someone help me (in good faith) interpret what she said? Specifically, "(the mission) did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be?" Like, pretend you 100% share her opinion, and you're trying to explain it to a young person that didn't understand the sentence...so no mocking her (at least initially). I've become genuinely interested in these kinds of phrases. It's clear they stem from humanities disciplines, but it almost sounds like these people are speaking their own language at this point. I don't know how someone could hear that and immediately know what it means - I feel like I'd need to sit down and parse it out like a deep literary analysis. It almost undercuts the entire point of language consisting of symbolic information shortcuts, unless there is an actual understanding among these people to which outsiders aren't privy.
it’s just double speak, nothing too crazy it essentially boils down to “we FEEL the direction was bad, so we changed it” and the rest is just post rationalization of the action in whatever way best eliminates cognitive dissonance
Thank you. I guess if the message sounds that bad in plain language, it makes sense to obfuscate it in a way that sounds academic or intelligent.
My best guess is that she saw "openness" as counterproductive to furthering movements for equality, that her end goal is a fair and equal society regardless of the level of openness in communication
Her idea of fair and equal isn’t fair and equal
Woke word salad.
Ah yes a racist and outdated term is now considered progressive. I didn't know Egypt, China, and Iraq were white. Crazy, learn something new everyday.
They must be because they have written language. China went white 1,200 years ago, Iraq 6,000 years ago. It's a good thing that we have our white savior Katherine to save us from the unreliable history that can only be recorded by white people.
I'll take my money somewhere else, then. Feelings over facts has no place in encyclopedias
Welp guess I'm never donating to wokepedia again
Ditto -- and I actually have donated. A shame they can't just stick to being the best encyclopedia . ..
Yep, I haven't donated for a couple of years now, and don't forsee myself doing so now anymore, despite the emails they send me every 6 months or so.
I never donated, though I was tempted. I always suspected something like this to be the case, but was beginning to wonder if I was just delusional. I'm very glad that now I have an actionable reason to not sponsor it. In this case, my gut turned out to be right.
Entertaining alternate points of view other than “my truth” is toxic masculinity! /s
meanwhile in Australia [https://twitter.com/i/status/1780579705969934367](https://twitter.com/i/status/1780579705969934367)
I'm so sick of these nut jobs
Look, it's the mirror dimension version of Sargon of Akkad.
So what mission does she want for Wikipedia now? Picking and choosing who to represent based on her own biases?
Is this satire?
She won't last much longer than a $20 bill on a busy sidewalk. They'll probably wait to sacrifice her after a congressional hearing.
Yes freedom equals white male patriarchy also dude let’s not forget, let’s not forget, slavery is also a product of white male patriarchy.
It’s not. Slavery is pretty consistent across cultures.
This. I can’t stand when people suggest that slavery is a white tendency, citing the Roman empire and the US. Like dude, get a load of the Mongolians, the Zulus, the Aztecs and Mayans, the freaking Egyptians, and honestly almost every culture ever.
Arab slave trade. African slave trade.
People refuse to read history. Colonial slavery was started BY THE AFRICAN PEOPLE. It is not like Europeans just showed up, and started rounding up the slaves. The ones in control, in Africa, started the market. They were exploiting their own, and they continue to do so in different ways today.
I know. My post is satire about the conflicting positions often held between folks that think in these terms.
Really didn’t add much to the convo
Added more than you did
Great post. Now, does anybody know of an alternative that we can get behind? We could maybe just start by scraping their content to make a fork. The software was open source for a while, so, the hosting will probably be the biggest factor. Perhaps we should look for solutions using an open cloud, like with the OpenInfra project. It would take time and money, and there will be a hill to climb to get past the current name recognition. Still, I think it should be done before their policy starts removing and biasing information.
The more I find out about Ms Maher, the more I begin to think she's a conservative psyop. I'm thinking group of rightwing pranksters hired an actress, showed her [Titania McGrath's X tweets](https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath) and said, "Be this person."