sridc

Another way I put this sometimes: editorial judgment is not the same thing as censorship.

Only if the editors are politically diverse. From the Wikipedia article Ideological bias on Wikipedia, "articles with fewer edits by a smaller number of ideologically homogeneous contributors were more likely to reflect editorial bias"

When you label the person you disagree with as a fascist (instead of engaging with them in civil and kind manner so as to tease out the exact nature of the difference in opinion, and thereby understand each other) you are already starting from a place where civility and kindness exist no more.

How can we encourage members to focus on the content, instead of discrediting a news source, and thereby enable us to come out of the victimhood culture?

For example when Quillette articles got posted, many WT.Social members immediately jumped to complaining about the source, wanting to censor it out of the platform. There were hardly any discussion of the content of the article.

As long as the people involved are civil and kind, I don't see a problem.

See https://letter.wiki/conversations for an example of what this might look like if we allowed political diversity under the "be kind towards one another" code of conduct.

Thank you for the response!

Better is genuine community control in the wiki way.

I think this works only if the said community is politically diverse. From the Wikipedia article Ideological bias on Wikipedia, "articles with fewer edits by a smaller number of ideologically homogeneous contributors were more likely to reflect editorial bias"