zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
I can see worrying about harassment. "Inclusivity", though? (From the tone of the press release, they mean race and gender, not article subjects.) Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

>>Animat+L2
Inclusivity, because you can then lay claim any dispute of facts of an article are instead a dispute that only exists because one side is bigoted, racist, or other such nonsense, and actually only disagrees because they do not accept the person posting the disputed fact.

It is one of the main methods of cancel culture, by portraying any disagreement as based in identity differences there can be no functional discussion of the facts at hand

>>Shivet+UB
> bigoted, racist, or other such nonsense

Can you clarify how one side or another in a discussion being bigoted or racist is nonsense?

>>shadow+wE
The claim that it's bigoted or racist is nonsense, not being bigoted or racist.

>>0-_-0+5G
I don't think I follow. Can you provide an example of such a discussion that has happened?

>>shadow+FG
In general? I guess a good example would be transgender athletes. This is a controversial subject but a reasonable argument can be made that people who grew up with higher levels of testosterone have an unfair advantage over people who didn't. This concern is often dismissed as bigotry. This fits the above description that said "portraying any disagreement as based in identity differences there can be no functional discussion of the facts at hand"