 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
| ||||
This was originally published as Wikipedia:Contentious populations
Wikipedia dubs certain topic areas as Contentious Topics (CTOP) or as subject to General Sanctions (GS). Therein, editors are held to higher conduct standards and admins have additional discretion to apply bans. The community, admins, and arbitrators regularly apply " broadly construed" topic bans, wherein the user is forbidden from editing around a topic area.
Some of these are narrow contentious topics with firm boundaries (ie "Abortion", "COVID-19", and "Yasuke"). But many are contentious populations, demographics, populations, peoples, or global regions (ie "Kurds and Kurdistan", "Eastern Europe", "South Asia", and "gender-related disputes or controversies").
This results in a systematically biased double standard in sanctioning towards those deemed a contentious population. Minoritized editors must navigate a system where their identity is a "contentious topic" with revokable access. If banned, they are not only wholly cut off from any editing regarding their identity (from food to politics to music), but banned from discussing discrimination or systemic bias they've experienced on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, other editors (say, straight white Americans, for example) are never at risk of having their identity deemed a contentious topic.
There is a clear double standard that to date, there has never been a ban on "men, broadly construed", or "Americans or the United States, broadly construed". Thus, a ban on any mention of a minority is almost always a disproportionate ban when applied to members of that minority. It is my sincere hope to one day mark this essay, describing a manifestation of epistemic injustice on Wikipedia, as deprecated.
| For member of minority | For non-member of minority |
|---|---|
| Banned from discussing their culture | Banned from discussing minority |
| - Every song, artist, poem, writer, food, etc | Free to discuss their own culture |
| Banned from discussing their life experiences with other editors | Free to discuss their life experiences |
| Banned from discussing experiences of discrimination faced onwiki | Free to discuss discrimination they've faced |
Some examples are particularly pernicious / obvious. A key example:
| For editor who is a person of color | For editor who is not |
|---|---|
| Banned from editing/discussing race/intelligence | Banned from editing/discussing race/intelligence |
| Banned from discussing racism they've experienced onwiki or IRL with other editors |
N/A |
Likewise,
| For everyone but straight men | For straight men |
|---|---|
| Banned from editing/discussing GENSEX | Banned from editing/discussing GENSEX |
| Banned from WikiProject like WP:Women in Red or WP:LGBT, which exist to counter systemic biases on WP and organize editors to fill content gaps on those who aren't straight men. |
Free to keep writing about straight men in every other wikiproject. |
| Banned from discussing sexism they've experienced onwiki or IRL with other editors |
N/A |
The majority of Wikipedians are never at risk for this. There has never been a topic ban on "men" or "straight people" but there is a ban on "people who aren't straight men". The contentious topic "gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them" (GENSEX), includes LGBT topics, feminist topics, and projects like WP:Women in Red.
There are no bans on "Western Europe" or the "United States". But contentious populations like "Southeast Asia", the "Horn of Africa", and so on must face them. We can examine this through an exception proving the rule, "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people". The only other similar scope is post-1978 Iranian politics, which seems an outlier. American editors are safe from a total ban on art, culture, history, people, etc - that's fair game as long as they stay out of politics. Some editors get banned from all of that on a subcontinent, a standard American editors would vehemently oppose allowing imposed on themselves.
There are 3 levels of solution to this:
Micro-level: In any situation, try to apply the narrowest possible ban. If you are considering banning a member of a minority from any and all discussions of that minority, think long and hard about whether that's necessary. Check their contributions, use your good judgement, and just keep in mind the double standard - the same ban affects members of the minority in question differently.
Meso-level: Update WP:BANEX to allow userpage discussion of your identity/life experiences/editing experiences unless explicitly included in the ban.
Macro-level Stop designating populations as contentious. Simple as. Take the same care that went into crafting "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people" when it applies to minority groups.
As a positionality statement and final illustration of my point:
I write this as a REDACTED editor who has spent the last 5 years researching/writing for academia/wikipedia the history, sociology, and anthropology of REDACTED people. I have written 2 GAs and dozens more articles on REDACTED topics across languages. I have authored a WP essay on the experiences of discrimination REDACTED editors have faced on onwiki, which ran in Wikipedia's newspaper, The Signpost. I have been subject to physical attacks and textual harassment because I am REDACTED. I am currently banned from "REDACTED topics," broadly construed.
Discuss this story