 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or aWikipedia policy, as it has not beenreviewed by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: 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 racist beliefs or who display racist imagery or ideas on their user pages should beimmediately reported at ANI, under the same principles and for the same reasons as are described inWP:No Nazis. |
Racism of various kinds has been a recurring problem on Wikipedia, and nearly since its inception. Indeed, most of the article subjects topics that have been placed underdiscretionary sanctions are those in which racist sentiments (and accusations of such) have played a major role. Racism will usually have a profound effect on an editor's judgment; it will color facts and push the editor to believe inconspiracy theories andpseudoscience, and use those ideologies to justify their beliefs. On the other hand, unsupported accusations of racism toward other editors will always be considereduncivilpersonal attacks (and possibly evenharassment), bestow a negative chilling effect on otherwise-positive and collaborative discussions, and add much more difficultly for administrators to properly identify and block racist editors.
Editors motivated by racism, and editors who see racism in anything they disagree with, aredisruptive to the community, and will be blocked or banned if they participate, engage, or express support for racism in their actions or behaviors.
The basic definition of racism is the belief that ability and virtue are different for different races, and that one can organize the races into hierarchies based on this. Not all racists believe that their race is superior in every way. For example, manywhite 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 specific way.
Racists generally believe in the following:
Racists also frequently believe:
These beliefs are false or unverifiable.
Frequently, racists will publicly express their beliefs using more subtle words and strategies than with direct and unambiguous ones. For example, a racist person may acknowledge a genocide and even admit that it was wrong, but will go to some length or level of effort in order 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 whose religious belief is other than Islam (e.g. Coptic Christian or Druze).
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 for 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. Expressing such views on Wikipedia will always be considereduncivil and, if made against or toward other editors, will always be considered blatant and seriouspersonal attacks as well as unambiguous attempts at grossharassment.
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 awebhost to show racist or Nazi-like imagery, propaganda, or mythologizing – is considereddisruptive editing because it sends a message stating (directly or indirectly) that a significant portion of our readers and editors, in one way or another, shouldn't exist at all due to their ethnicity or race. This belief system (and hence any expression in support thereof) is indirect conflict withWikipedia's five pillars, which outline Wikipedia'sfounding principles and how each editor is expected to behave and contribute to the project. As a result of this conflict, users canand will be blocked for such disruption.
This enforcement is sometimes interpreted and expressed by users as being a form of censorship.This is not correct. As a private website, Wikipedia and its community of editors have the freedom, the right, and the ability to determine and deem certain behaviors and actions asdisruptive. In addition, they can also deem that the disruption, immediately upon its creation or presence, is severe enough that it makes contributing in a positive and collaborative environment impossible. When that level of disruption occurs, and when it crosses the line in regards to racism, that person is no longer welcome here as an editor.
Additionally, editors who come here to push this point of view within any articles or content, under the guise of theneutral point of view policy, are also typically blocked as being "POV pushers".
Casting aspersions of racism (as well as-ist or-phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or acoup 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 ofpersonal attack which may lead to the accuserbeing blocked.
Aspersions make the normaldispute resolution process difficult to go through and may create achilling 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.
Sister page
Related pages
Background information
Essays