User categories getting deleted. First to go are Furry and LGBT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use...2007#October_10

Hey, I think that this is a good thing. The more of these they delete, the more people they're going to piss off. We should see donations fall, new account creations reach new lows, user activity at all time lows.

Why are we struggling so hard to try to get rid of Wikipedia when they're doing a fine job of that themselves?

I say somebody should create a "Category: Furry LGBT".

So, the premise is that self-identification doesn't help the encyclopedia project, right? Then what about "Ohio Wikipedians" or "Republican Wikipedians" or "Jewish Wikipedians" (which I'm not bothering to check, but assume are all categories). Aren't those simply self-identifications that don't help the project?

Greg

They also seem to be once again using that very special WP notion of "consensus."

Roughly speaking, the point is supposed to be that categories that help collaboration are good, ones that don't are bad. Category:Jewish wikipedians doesn't help collaboration, so it's out. Category:Wikipedians interested in Judaism is in, because rather than identifying the wikipedian, it helps you find collaborators to work on pages. The distinction is rather subtle, and rather pointless, but such is life.

I see no problem with the rationale; you use your userpage to identify what you want about yourself, you join or create WikiProjects to work in collaboration with people with similar interests. Sticking yourself in a list just as a means of identification is meaningless, at least in an encyclopedic sense.

Of course. But what's interesting is that they're now deleting this kind of information.

Why are they doing so?

What is the motivation? Wouldn't you think that it would help the project if people could see immediately "oh yes, this person is LGBT-friendly, so I can get him/her to help me source the article on "drag" or whatever it is?

Why are they trying to get rid of the tissue of community when that's what (in a Randian agenda) the project is supposed to be about???

The distinction is also incorrect. Knowing someone's point of view and likely biases can be a key step in reaching a true consensus with that person.

Jewish Wikipedians might be presumed to have a certain shared viewpoint or bias, whether or not they are particularly interested in Judaism, a viewpoint or bias not shared by non-Jews interested in Judaism. Put like that, it seems a total fallacy actually (compare Jewish editors such as Jayjg, IZAK, Newport, Mibelz, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and non-Jewish ones interested in Judaism like RachelBrown and Sheynhertz-Unbayg).