There's an interesting Buzzfeed article: Bernstein, The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia, June 27, 2019. It shows striking similarity to the current happenings here. Quoting Cherry picking from the article:
The foundation banned Fram shortly before 6 p.m. on June 10. Within an ho...
Interesting... many similarities, especially overruling their communities and ignoring set process; but I think your summary might over-state the importance of the neo-pronouns aspect in the Wikipedia case (neither the foundation nor the banned user have suggested any link there - unlike here, the link appears to be pure speculation), and understate a major difference that apparently even the Wiki user's supporters agree there was a long history of being personally confrontational including possible minor harassment (whereas Monica is widely admired for patience and restraint).
This seems exceedingly vague. Are you asking why two similar events occurred in different "parts" of the world? Don't similar things happen in different places every day? I'm not really sure what you're hoping to get out of this question.
@Mari-LouA I didn't vote to close, but I will if this is reopened. It doesn't seem to have any relation to SE whatsoever. So some other online community also had a kerfuffle. OK, but why would we want to talk about it here and how is it related to the SE network? I really don't see how this can be considered on topic.
@terdon-stopharmingMonica the Wikipedia episode helps users have a broader perspective of the current situation. It also reveals how non-profit websites treat their volunteers, the similarities and differences are important. N.B. I would never describe the firing of Monica Cellio as a kerfuffle either. Read the Buzz article, which is very well-written, to understand why Rebecca's question is relevant.
@Mari-LouA sorry, but I strongly disagree. The last thing we need is to get sidetracked onto discussing some other incident whose details we don't fully understand that happened on some other site. And the "why" question isn't one we can answer. On the whole, I just don't see any point to this question and I certainly don't see how it can be considered on topic for this site.
The one thing I could possibly see to salvage the question would be to change it to ask what we can learn from the Wikipedia incident and how we can apply it here to help solve the situation on this site. But I wouldn't recommend it as it would invalidate all the answers at this point as well as still being very iffy as far as being on topic.
@terdon In order to better understand politics and policies, we don't limit ourselves to looking and talking about one village or one town, we need to look beyond our garden fence and view the world. In both websites, a respected member lost a privilege, one their moderating privileges, another the continuation to edit and curate a site they clearly were passionate about. The question can and should lead to a more indepth and thoughtful discussion
@Mari-LouA then let's discuss the reasons behind it. I see no point in discussing the specifics of some other site's situation. We don't know what happened there, nor what went on behind the scenes so discussing it is both off topic and (IMO) pointless. But hey, if you think it's helpful, you're free to vote to reopen just as I'm free to vote to close.
@Rubiksmoose That's a very good point; and the facts and outcome of the Wikipedia case seem to be even more unclear than ours, so I imagine the answer to "What we can learn..." would be "Nothing yet, ask again in 6 months"
@terdon then let's discuss the reasons behind it difficult to do when a question is closed. I cannot vote to reopen twice. I object to the fact that after five users cast their votes to reopen this question, minutes later it was closed by a mod. It is a shame.
I meant open a new question that is actually on topic, and doesn't focus on this other incident we know even less about. This question should remain closed, IMO.
@terdon I know of several EL&U users who are also contributors to Wikipedia, they might lend an important insight. EDITED: They could discuss the similarities but also the differences between the two situations, which are important to note, in order to see the bigger picture.
@Mari-LouA Or they could post it as a question-proposal like, "We should do [x] based on [y] which I learned from a similar Wikipedia controversy", which would be on topic here because it's something we can do here
The OP is pointing out the similarities between the two events, I for one, did not know about the Wikipedia but knowing about it, helps me understand how some American websites view volunteers' contributions. There is a worrying trend that is leading to conformism and blandness that is suffocating individuality, creativity and innovation. Some users are just "different" from the masses but at the same time hugely talented and skilled.
I voted to re-open because this is obstensibly about Stack Exchange and the Stack Exchange community; and this is the place where we talk about the community and Stack Exchange.
@GeorgeStocker maybe you could edit it to make it more on topic? As it stands, the question is asking why two incidents, neither of whose full details are known and only one of which even happened here, are related. I really don't see i) how we can answer that or ii) what point there is in such comparisons in the absence of facts. Not to mention that it doesn't seem to be asking for a discussion about SE at all.
Ten users, who are not rebels, mutineers or trolls cast their vote to reopen a question, swiftly followed by two mods' (non-elected) binding votes. How would one best describe this scenario? I wonder. Disrespectful to the community, perhaps?
@Mari-LouA I can assure you that we can easily find another ten who want to close it. And no, it's a mod's job to make this sort of call for controversial topics.
@Mari-Lou, I was this close from leaving a comment to Tink asking them if they closed this question due to flags being raised or on their own initiative. The other remaining mod casting another binding vote a whopping three minutes after this was reopened makes things even more complicated -- clearly this question is being monitored, either because of flags or because the remaining mods do not want to see more answers here.
@FrédéricHamidi Glofindel's answer essentially boils down to "I don't know anything about the WP incident, but here are some thoughts about our situation". His answer is insightful, as his answers tend to be, but doesn't really relate to the WP incident at all. Which is precisely the point I'm trying to make: we don't have the information necessary to discuss the WP issue and this isn't the place for that discussion anyway.
@Rubiksmoose I sincerely don't see the controversy in this question. It is researched, it shows effort, it shows thought, it seeks to understand. There have been far worse questions, really snarky ones allowed to ride the waves.
@terdon, all right then. For the record, I'm perfectly fine discussing the on-topicness of this question with fellow users, even if we do not agree. But mods running around casting binding votes actually makes this more difficult than it should be.
@Mari-LouA I don't see the controversy here either. It seems plainly and obviously off-topic, in addition to all the other things that you mentioned. I honestly do appreciate the very good qualities this question has. Trust me, the lack of snark is utterly refreshing. But on-topicness is a base condition which must be met, and I don't see this question meeting that. I did put a suggestion for how I felt a closer to on-topic version of this question could be stated and why it would still be an issue likely.
Yes this question is being monitored because it's off topic yet it is attracting reopen votes. The question as currently framed is about something that happened on Wikipedia several months ago. Therefore it is nothing to do with Stack Exchange. If you can rework it - without invalidating the existing answers - to bring it on topic then it will be left open.
Just want to note that I’m not going to complain if someone makes edits to make it more suitable. (I guess I’m relatively inexperienced at meta.SE; many of the top “questions” are of the form “[Statement]. Discuss.”). Indeed, my motivation for this question is the natural follow up questions: what can we learn? What does Wikipedia’s situation suggest will happen next here? Can we avoid repeating mistakes? What was effective at resolving tension?
@Rubiksmoose I have edited the title but Rebecca has said they would not mind if their question was edited so as to be on-topic. Changing the title is tricky without invalidating the answers, but I think I have struck a balance. I'm sure, someone else can do a better job. In the meantime, I have to go.
@RebeccaJ.Stones I guess 'what was effective at resolving tension' on wikipedia is a question for wikipedia. If that already has an answer somewhere, the question of 'could this be used here to resolve tension' might be better. 'what can we learn' is a bit broad, 'what might happen here next' a bit speculative unless you have a list of what happened on wp, same goes for 'repeating mistakes', it needs you to already know what mistakes were made on wp then... and which ones aren't made by SE yet.... I'm most fond of the last one, but only if it has the context of what wp did to resolve tension.
(and at this point, it would probably invalidate existing answers, so writing a new one might be considered).
The current title of the question asks the question that is on-topic; I've added that line to the question asked in the body since apparently "It's not good enough" to have the question be in the title.
@Mari-LouA I added it because recent events is ambiguous. Recent events may denote the impeachment investigation against President Trump or Brexit and a range of other current issues, that's not what this is about. Most people probably know by now, but people who come here for the first time in a month may not be familiar with these events. The most important part of my edit, though, is to focus the question on events here, not Wikipedia, by swapping them. That seems to be what others with higher powers seem concerned about.
@JJfor I can promise that no future visitor will think the question refers to Trump and the impeachment or to Brexit. 1. This is not Politics.SE, 2. The dozens of links posted by the OP makes it very clear which events are being referred to and the name Monica (not DJT) is mentioned several times.
@Mari-LouA feel free to remove the link if it's that big of a problem. I think it's possibly helpful for further reading, superfluous at worst. Like I said, the main reason for editing was to swap the two element in the question to focus on this site. Let's not discuss the link further, if you want to remove it, go ahead, if not, don't.
@ChrisF: I have to echo Robert Harvey here. The Question title and the question inside the body itself both relate to discussing things related to Stack Exchange. If you and other Meta.SE are going to continue to re-close it even though it's clearly on topic, then go ahead and delete it as well.
@GeorgeStocker (and Robert) if you make the question body match the title then I won't have a problem. As it stands at the moment the title is OK, but the body still (to me) asks about Wikipedia.
We have a difference of opinion here. Comparing the two events doesn't take away from this being about Stack Exchange. The Context, for me, is key. The events closely shadow one another and inform answers we give.
"...we can easily find another ten who want to close it" - Is that really how you do things? Do you have little meetings? An announcement board somewhere, where you link to posts you want flagged? Yuck.
Moderator actions aside - this post has been closed and reopened at least twice by the community. I'm pretty sure this is going to get asked about, and meta discussion will happen. I don't see close/reopen wars as healthy so... folks, lets work this out before we go through another few cycles of closing and reopening.
