Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 230:
:What we are looking at is exclusionary policies which create biases. Now, there are some natural ones, such as geographical, or by interest - but if, say, I wanted to join your group, despite only not going to NYC in three decades, would you say no? Would you even ask my ___location on sign up? That's what we are getting at. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|L235|Worm That Turned}} Thanks for clarifying. I did indeed misunderstand. Makes me wonder why it says "...norms regarding ''transparency''...encourage that group's membership to be open". The ability to ''join'' may be in line with "open community" but doesn't achieve "transparency" except insofar as it's still a problem. "Group" is still incredibly broad, and "join" is ambiguous. "Groups" very often involve off-wiki identities. Saying that those groups must allow anyone to join means allowing anyone to determine the off-wiki identity of the people who attend. That's in some ways worse than requiring the group disclose a list of members. Throughout the GSoW discussions, it sure seems like a bunch of people have wanted to join ''so that'' they can discover the names/usernames of existing members, for example. I've never been involved with GSoW, but I have been involved with some "groups" that have not been open to the public. Sometimes this is just because it's an event run by a specific organization,
== Comments by {username} ==
| |||