I think the details of this dispute make it particularly prone to emotional positions on both sides, not unlike many other naming disputes (which have historically been some of the most intractable, although usually for reasons of nationalism). Sue and others make a good point about the existence of expertise on trans issues and gender identity in academia, but... This is an editorial decision, despite the academic and moral positions many have staked out.
Wikipedia is ultimately a reference work, and its principal mission is to provide a useful reference to potential readers. In the tension between "do no harm to living people" and "best serve our educational mission", we often come down in favor of the mission. If you don't think this is the case, you should re-familiarize yourself with the many situations in which we partly ignore complaints by living people and retain well-verified but potentially negative content. There is a legitimate debate to be made about the judgment on where to draw the line in each unique set of circumstances... but it isn't as clear cut as some, including Sue, have asserted. My opinion is that it makes sense to continue to host the article at [[Bradley Manning]], and to avoid trying to preempt or influence coverage in favor of using Chelsea Manning's preferred identity. I believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly. The administrators who jumped at the chance to make controversial changes without even an attempt at discussion or consensus have been justly criticized, and while rigid policies that proscribe attempts to arrive at a consensus judgment on a case by case basis is the wrong solution, it is sensible to try address the poor conduct of several administrators in this case. _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
