zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
We’re are entering a new wave of censorship, all in the name of “the greater good”.

>>druken+e3
Codes of conduct aren't censorship. In the physical world, they're known as "house rules". You want to join the community, here's how you behave. It is essentially a list of "how not to be an asshole".

Nothing is stopping you from expressing yourself however you want - just elsewhere, if you can't follow the rules.

fwiw, this very website has its own code of conduct: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It focuses on different things than the Wikimedia one, but it's fundamentally the same thing. For both of them, I'd suggest that if there are things that you feel are detrimental, you specifically address them.

Making an empty comment like "new wave of censorship" achieves nothing except saying "I don't like the rules". In which case, fine, there are plenty of other places on the Internet.

>>groby_+f5
If the rules were decided by the English Wikipedia community following their process for making such decisions then this would be a meaningful criticism. But this is an edict from the WMF ivory tower. To say it's representative of the Wikipedia editors is a gross mischaracterisation.

From my perspective it's naked entryism, striking at the centralised weakness in an otherwise robust, decentralised system.

>>cthor+F5
The English Wikipedia can be part of the problem in some cases. It's not a democracy but a "tight-knit" community where insiders have a lot of influence, and even harassing, uncivil behavior can go on for a long time if it's perceived as "defending" the community's precious "work" from new editors. Part of the problem is also that harassment concerns must often be disclosed in private for obvious reasons, so a community-wide dispute resolution process might just not work very well for those.

And then there's Wikipedias in other languages and other Wikimedia projects, which come with additional cans of worms.