Hi EditorASC, I'd like to send you a kind caution about your engagement on the IdeaLab pages for the Inspire Campaign. I understand that you do not support this campaign, or the goal of increasing participation of women, or WMF providing funds to do so. That is totally fine to have your strong stance.
I want to clarify a misconception that you have: Inspire Grants are not "quotas" that require more women; nor are they "affirmative action" that somehow relaxes our policies to permit women to edit. What it does, instead, is offer people with ideas funding to support experimental projects that will create a more inviting and hospitable editing environment for more people than we currently have.
If you don't like that idea, again, that's fine. However it is not ok to go around repeating the falsehood that this campaign is in anyway forcing women to edit or corrupting Wikipedia's standards to facilitate more women editing.
If you do want to share thoughts 'against' this campaign, there is a place for you to do that:
I'd also like you to review the Friendly Space Expectations for IdeaLab and the Inspire Campaign, because they might be slightly different than what you've encountered in other wiki environments.
Finally, I want to invite you to participate in a positive way by helping support the proposals that might have the greatest impact. Or, if you just hate this whole thing, then I'd encourage you to just leave others to their work. Gender diversity is not everyone's goal; however, there is something important about respecting that it is some people's goal, and it's quite ok for different groups to simultaneously pursue different goals in relative peace.
- What is not OK, is for you or anyone else setting up straw man arguments (falsely stating what you have alleged I said) and then attacking me on the basis of something I did not say.
- Try reading again what I said and if you wish to respond further, then limit your response to what I ACTUALLY said and if you disagree, then say why, but DO NOT continue to attack me personally with an invalid logical fallacy straw man argument.
- I never used the word "hate," nor did I indicate I am opposed to various kinds of humans editing at Wikipedia. What I am opposed to is the recruiting of new editors on the basis of group classifications in which you seem to want to put editors. That kind of approach will not improve the quality of editing at Wikipedia. It will only tend to make it easier for some editors (of all kinds) to get away with constantly making disruptive edits in violation of the fundamental rules upon which Wikipedia is founded. Again, I could care less what gender, race, political persuasion or a host of other arbitrary classifications that any editor might be arbitrarily assigned to, by those who glorify an inane "virtue" like "diversity."
- All I care about (and, judging from responses that followed, others do too) is the quality of the edit. Does it comply with fundamental Wiki editing rules and does it add or improve text that is notable and relevant to the subject matter of the article? I don't want to know anything about the person making the edit as to their gender etc. If you believe that females are as capable as males, in an editing environment, then the appeal for new editors should be on the same basis for all: Quality edits that improve the article and which comply with the rules. Political agendas do not work to improve that kind of standard. To the contrary, they not only insult females by implying they need special help that males do not need, but also serve to implicitly wink at COI, POV and OR, which has wisely been prohibited for very good reason.
- As far as I am concerned, I have already participated in a "positive way," but you obviously don't like my view. That is your right, of course, but to cast my comments as being negative and somehow not correct, is to begin with the assumption that the premise is correct, even before the facts are assembled. That amounts to nothing more than petitio principii, a fallacious circular argument that offers as evidence for the conclusion, nothing more than the faulty premise of the proposition. That approach is not only fallacious, but usually designed to cut off any legitimate debate about the proposition itself. Readers are expected to accept that YOU are positive, but that I am negative, just because you say so. That amounts to a "sneer" "argument" in my book, that is used when the proponent has no rational argument to offer.
- In my view, your opposition to what I said amounts to your opposing fundamental Wikipedia editing standards that apply equally to all, in lieu of different standards which will be applied in different ways to different editors, depending upon what group they have been assigned to according to political agenda diversity rules.
- There is no way to discriminate "for" someone whom is arbitrarily classified into some special group, without discriminating "against" all others who are not classified that way. Either there is EQUAL standards and treatment for ALL, or there is special treatment for some, at the expense of all others. THAT is the history of devotion to "diversity" as opposed to devotion to EQUALITY for all, with special privilege for none. EditorASC (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Please fill out our Inspire campaign surveyEdit
Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!
Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.
What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?Edit
I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!
Here’s how to participate:
- Learn more about this consultation
- Vote on and submit new campaign topics in the AllOurIdeas Survey
- Discuss campaign topics and ask questions on the IdeaLab talk page
Future IdeaLab Campaigns resultsEdit
Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.
With great thanks,
Open Call for Individual Engagement GrantsEdit
Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.
- Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
- Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
- Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants
I am blocked in Arabic?Edit
In Arabic Wikipedia (that seems to be the language that says I am blocked), I have no idea what they are talking about. I don't believe I have ever posted there, but they have blocked me for using the moniker of "EditrorASC" as best as I can tell. Does anyone have a clue as to what they mean? EditorASC (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)