User:MjolnirPants/No Racists

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut

WP:NORACISTS

This page in a nutshell: Note: this is a historical archive of the essay that became WP:NORACISTS preserved in MPants userspace upon his retirement. Racism creates a divisive and unwelcoming environment, especially for people who are members of the discriminated-against group. It undermines collaboration and causes disruption and conflict merely by existing. Editors who express racists beliefs or who display racist imagery or ideas on their user pages should be immediately reported at ANI, under the same principles and for the same reasons as are described in WP:No Nazis.

Racism of various types has been a recurring problem on WP almost since it's inception. Indeed, most of the subjects which have been subjected to discretionary sanctions are those in which racist sentiments (and accusations of such) have played a major role. Racism can have a profound effect on an editor's judgement, coloring facts and pushing the editor to believe in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience used to justify their beliefs. Unsupported accusations of racism, on the other hand, can have a chilling effect on discussions, and make it the admins' jobs harder in weeding out racist editors.

Editors motivated by racism, and editors who see racism in anything they disagree with are disruptions to the community, and if they persist in their behavior should be blocked or banned.

Racist beliefs

The basic definition of racism is one who believes that different races have different levels of various abilities, and that one can organize the races into hierarchies based on this. It is important to note that not all racists believe that their race is superior in every way. For example, many white supremacists believe that Asians are the most intelligent race. They will almost invariably feel that their own race is superior overall, but may "concede" that some other race is better in some highly specific way.

Racist will always always believe in the following:

That their race is morally/ethically superior to others.
That they have a right to live in a racially homogenous nation.
That their culture is superior to others.
That genetic difference between races are fundamental and meaningful.

Racist frequently also believe in other things, such as:

Other races seek to destroy theirs.
Their race is the most oppressed, usually justified by convoluted logic, rather than actual examples of oppression.
That the religious beliefs of other races are evil.
Various conspiracy theories about other racial groups.
That genocides committed by members of their own race never happened.

These beliefs are always false or at the very least, unprovable. Frequently, the expressed beliefs can be much subtler. For example, a racist person may acknowledge a genocide and may even admit that it was wrong, but will go to some lengths to justify it, under the auspices of "explaining how it happened". Racism and other forms of bigotry often go hand in hand, and are sometimes interchangeable. For example, in the West, there's a strong strain of anti-Islamic bigotry which is frequently indistinguishable from racism against Middle-Eastern people.

Problems with racism

Interpreting information: The problems caused by racism among editors is that racism will inevitably distort the way an editor interprets information from reliable sources as well as how the editor determines reliability in sources. This leads to frequent problems, with racist editors insisting upon using unreliable sources that support their beliefs, and twisting information from reliable sources in a way as to support, or at least not contradict their beliefs.

Engendering conflict: The way racism cause people to view the world is very different than the way non-racists view the world. To a non-racist person, the difference in wealth and power between two races is usually seen as a problem that should be corrected. To a racist person, there is no problem, this is simply the inevitable and obvious result of the perceived differences in races. So when an expert speaks publicly about such issues, a racist will see a person who should be trustworthy lying publicly, undermining their trust in experts in general, and in this one in particular. Such a racist person might then extend considerable time and resources undermining efforts by this expert or others like them to address the issue. This conflict hardens both sides against each other, turning relatively uncontroversial efforts to improve society into bitter cultural battles.

Fostering extreme views: And racists rarely win such battles, except in the short term, a fact which has historically turned them insular and kept them in check. These days, it is easy enough to find a racist of any sort on the internet, however, and this massive conglomeration has resulted in racist beliefs becoming more virulent and hateful, as racist compete online to see who can say the most hateful things, or commit the most hateful acts, thus proving themselves to be true believers in their cause.

Paranoia: The end result is a huge disconnect from reality. To a racist editor, reliable sources are full of lies, and fringe publications with no fact-checking mechanism the only outlet for truth. To a racist editor, anyone who disagrees with them is either racist against them, or paid by those who are to say such things. It is easy to see how such a person can become impossible to collaborate with.

Chilling effect: On top of that, there is a chilling effect that comes from being racist. People whose race are considered inferior by the racist will be condescended to and treated differently than others, a fact which quickly becomes apparent to many users. Editors eventually avoid working with a racist editor, not wishing to expose themselves to such toxicity. This reduced participation ends up hurting the project.

Outright disruption: When editors grow weary of dealing with racist editors, sometimes they will invoke admins to deal with the problem, by starting a thread at ANI. Naturally, racist editors of all stripes, but particularly those of the same type as the original editor will flock to such discussions to block action from being taken against them. These editors will also look at diffs provided, and follow them to article talk pages, where they will continue edit wars and arguments started by the original racist editor.

Blocking racist editors

The English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement as a whole are based on the concept that everyone has a right to receive free knowledge, regardless of their race, ethnicity, class, creed, or any other demographic factor, and that everyone has the right to contribute to this sharing of knowledge so long as they act in a way that does not disrupt the ability of others to contribute. Racism, both historical and neo-racist varieties, is inherently incompatible with these principles in a way that virtually no other ideology is. This is particularly true of neo-Nazis and other groups with ties to genocidal ideologies.

Disruption by racists, while often taking place in articles and talk pages, often comes to a flash-point in user space, when a user openly displays iconography from racist groups on their user page or signature. The only way for administrators to recognize this form of disruption is if these individuals make it known on Wikipedia. Declaring oneself to be a racist or using Wikipedia as a webhost to show racist or Nazi imagery and propaganda or mythologizing crosses the line into disruptive editing because it is telling a significant portion of our readers and editors that they shouldn't exist. This is contrary to the principles in the policy on personal attacks and Wikipedia's five pillars. That isn't acceptable, and we block for it. This is sometimes interpreted as censorship. It is not censorship. As a private website, Wikipedia and its community has the right to determine that some actions cross a line that make it impossible to contribute in a collaborative environment, and when that line has been crossed, the person is no longer welcome.

Additionally, editors who come here to push this fringe point of view in articles, under the guise of the neutral point of view policy, are typically blocked as POV pushers.

False accusations of racism

Casting aspersions of racism (as well as -ist or -phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or a coup de grâce on a noticeboard. They have the potential to permanently damage reputation, especially when the accused's account is publicly tied to a real-world identity. As such, unsubstantiated aspersions are a form of personal attack which may lead to the accuser being blocked.

Aspersions make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through and may create a chilling effect. Editors are encouraged to work through the normal dispute-resolution process when it comes to legitimate content disputes, such as disagreements on the interpretation or quality of sources.

Racist beliefs

Problems with racism

Blocking racist editors

False accusations of racism

See also