RationalWiki talk:Community Standards

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

For the discussion and voting on the accountability rules for techs, see this archive.
For the discussion and voting on changes proposed in May 2020, see this archive.
For the rewrites and their discussions during January 2009, see the revamp and its talk page and archive, an early draft here, and further discussions here, plus the voting discussion.

Consistent policy on deadnames[edit]

Obviously, when dealing with Transgender people we respect preferred pronouns and we respect name changes-if Gwendolyn smith came out of the closet and our arcticle was called Robert Smith, we could change the name to Gwendolyn as soon as possible and edit all those bits of the Article referring to her as Robert. A small dispute on the Chelsea Manning page made me wonder though-can deadnames be used within an article, period? Even if we are still acknowledging the transgenderness of the subject as the truth of their nature? I apologize in advance, if it turns out we have had this debate before and I have just somehow forgotten.-Flandres (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning leaked classified info prior to transitioning, all early coverage therefore refers to her exclusively by her deadname. It's relevant information, and easily found elsewhere. There's no good reason not to mention it in the article.
I don't think we should mention deadnames of individuals who entered the public eye after transitioning. Christopher (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
The way I see the dispute that we've been having under Chelsea Manning is that it has less to do with whether or not to acknowledge a deadname exists and more to do what information it services. The questions I would recommend when deciding whether or not to include a deadname is this: "(1) Does providing the deadname serve any informational benefit beyond the sharing of the deadname itself? (2) Does that interest outweigh the humiliation towards the subject that comes with broadly publicizing that name?" If deadnaming can be avoided in a case where no one benefits from it, then I don't really see why the mere fact that Manning was famous before the transitioning. Otherwise we're suggesting that there's some intrinsic interest we should be satisfying by having other people know her deadname - and worse, we'd be the ones satiating that interest.
Although Chelsea Manning was notable before transitioning, the particulars of her name weigh in very little in that story. Others have pointed out that her transition was subject to a level of public spectacle, but even the information about that to readers isn't furthered by knowing Manning's deadname. Knowing her deadname doesn't add meaningful context to either her history with Wikileaks or the public nature of her transition. All including it does is lead us to the peddle someone's deadname for its own sake.
I would also emphasize that we don't have to go about this in the way Wikipedia does. Ironically, this all got started after I noted the use of Manning's deadname in RationalWiki's page on Wikipedia (where a similar dispute is going on), in particular in the subsection in which we're critical of Wikipedia's unnecessary use of deadnames. It seems like as people dedicated to critical thinking, and not just vomiting facts to readings, that we should be able to employ a higher standard when it comes to sharing heavily stigmatizing personal details such as a deadname.
P.S. Is there supposed to be a "reply" button somewhere here? I'm only able to contribute to this thread through the "edit" button. Catherine (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I'll ping @Lavalizard101 as they were also involved in the dispute.
Anyone who wants to understand the Chelsea Manning case needs to know her deadname. They'll inevitably come across it reading her Wikipedia article, or any contemporary source.
Given how widely available it is, we're not helping her in any meaningful way by not including it.
Manning has shared an article containing her deadname at least once, so it can't be as big a deal to her as you make it out to be (https://x.com/xychelsea/status/779297824361943040).
FWIW I agree the inclusion of her deadname in the Wikipedia article is superfluous, but it's warranted in her own article.
We don't have a reply button, you're doing things correctly. Christopher (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Indeed her birth name/dead name is notable and the hardline no dead names ever for those not notable prior to transitioning actually damages trans rights more than it helps, after all this is a position that quite a few trolls take up just to trash trans rights, it also ignores the wishes of trans people themselves as some transpeople want their dead names to be acknowledged rather than hidden away. It also comes across as feigning offense or being offended on behalf of someone else. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I’m not proposing a hardline “no deadnames ever rule,” I proposed a standard above that would find it permissible in certain circumstances. I do however think in Manning’s case it’s been used superfluously. There are some trans women who are comfortable acknowledging their deadname, but this captures a rather small minority of trans women and I don’t think we should work off the presumption that an individual trans woman wouldn’t feel humiliated by public acts of deadnaming. For most trans women, it’s an extremely intimate part of their life that they don’t want broadly shared. I understand that in Manning’s case it’s already well-known, but insisting we use it whenever we have an excuse to betrays any notion that we handle the matter with any care.
As for whether this is in some way white knighting for Manning, we should still have to uphold generalized standards for how we treat people in the absence of their direct input. I don’t suspect, for example, that we would be willing to republish widely-circulated revenge porn absent of the objections of the subject in question. Additionally this doesn’t just concern Manning herself - it would be rather jarring to most trans users to see another trans woman’s deadname used frivolously, since it earnestly calls into question other users’ interest in having it there.
A more substantive debate about Manning’s publicity and indicated degree of comfort with the publicity of her deadname may be warranted, but I fail to see how insisting upon using a trans woman’s deadname in an article can be argued as a distinct stance against transphobia. Catherine (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
"I don't think we should mention deadnames of individuals who entered the public eye after transitioning."
Wholeheartedly agreed.
"FWIW I agree the inclusion of her deadname in the Wikipedia article is superfluous..."
You can add me to that camp as well.
"...and the hardline no dead names ever for those not notable prior to transitioning actually damages trans rights more than it helps, after all this is a position that quite a few trolls take up just to trash trans rights..."
It has? I've never seen that, in fact I have seen the opposite-insistence on never using chosen names and laughing at everyone who doesn't use the deadname. I would like to stress I'm not accusing you of lying, Lava-I'm just curious. The internet certainly contains many things Flandres has never seen and does not know about.
As for the overall dispute, after seeing both sides put their position forward here, I'm actually going align with Catherine.-Flandres (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I would still beg to differ that the inclusion of Manning's deadname in her article is a helpful detail, but this might be part and parcel with the matter being before my time - I'm 23 years old and would have been a young child when Manning's involvement with Wikileaks happened. Nonetheless, at this time knowing her deadname isn't particularly helpful unless we're committed to helping users identify primary sources about her involvement in Wikileaks. I would additionally still re-articulate my comment from above that the matter still has implications for how we treat trans users/readers at large at RationalWiki.
As for the article, the tweet where she shared it was from 2016 when the nature of journalism about trans women was very different. It would have been difficult around that time to find nearly any article (outside of distinctly progressive media, and even then not always) that talked about a trans woman without including her deadname. It also would have been at a time that the she (and her deadname) were a more common fixture of mainstream public discourse. I think it's insufficient to say this tweet indicates a more generally degree of comfort with the use of her deadname.
I do appreciate however that this argument does reach into the substantive issues of the matter, even if I don't think the evidence of the relevance or comfort is sufficient. Catherine (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Could we just delete the ru domain and import all of its articles here?[edit]

2600:387:15:3C15:0:0:0:C (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah shit, I forgot all about RussianalWiki! IIRC, that needs to be an action by the RWF Board of Trustees. That being said, it doesn't appear to have been edited in months, so it might make sense to kill it and import it at this point (it only ever became a separate website because people got mad about coming upon random articles written in Russian while Bertran was heavily active. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. Especially since we now have the Translation of template that was created with the sole purpose of preventing people who get to non-English articles by clicking on Random page from saying, "What the hell is this crap?" Spud (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I believe the Russian-language RW may have some pages with no equivalent on the English-language RW. Also, were all of the Russian-language RW pages "translation of" English pages? Maybe some were started from scratch in Russian? It sounds like a lot of work for no obvious benefit: 1000+ articles to move and in need of redirects. Bongolian (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to change voting franchise requirements[edit]

Given that there has been some significant attempts at meddling with votes by BoNs in the final months of the old incorporation of RationalWiki, I propose that requirements for ability to vote should be made more stringent. I think that at a minimum, franchise should only be given to autopatrolled users, but I would personally prefer that voting for all issues require sysopped users. A more stringent requirement for voting would imply that the voters have demonstrated at least some minimal amount of good-faith editing on RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say sysop.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I concur with you both that sysop should be a requirement to vote. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't think anything needs to change - none of the attempts at meddling amounted to anything, and any future abuses can be dealt with by the mods on a case-by-case basis. The community is insular enough as it is.
We already require a certain number of votes and an account over a certain age to take part in some votes. Extending those requirements to AfDs, etc seems preferable to creating a seperate system. Christopher (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Last December, before the litigation, there was a vote to delete one of the future litigant's pages. The vote was 11 to 10 to delete, and one of the deciding votes was by a different future litigant (non-sysop). Bongolian (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Excellent point. The litigation gang has plenty of money to spend on trying to influence the new RW and appears to be increasingly active. Anything to make it less convenient for them is a good thing. Pinkerite (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)