Category talk:Identity Politics

I'm seriously concerned with this category as a whole.

Firstly, I think it would be good to be very careful to distinguish the parts of Identity Politics that are actually relevant to P2P and Commons theory. The view that it is opposed as a whole seems to me mistaken and an overreaction. So, firstly, I would take out probably most of the articles here – and they may fit very well into a separate website – and leave the ones that are most directly relevant.

Second, I would like to ensure that there is substantial invitation to critical viewpoints from all sides of the question.

As has been done with several other categories, I would suggest that the present content of the page is moved to indicate that it is Michel's personal compilation, representing his position, which is perfectly understandable, whatever you think of its merits. The category page would be trimmed down to give essentials only, with an attempt to balance the different positions on this matter.

We are not emulating Wikipedia, but still I would like to see some attempt to get closer to Wikipedia's NPOV.

Would any editors like to join me in working out what will restore a greater balance on this wiki?

— Simon Grant (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Simon,

This section has actually taken great care to be balanced, it represents the main strands of progressive and egalitarian critique, i.e. radical left, social-democratic and liberal left, with care also for minority theorists. It is true that conservative anti-racist critiques are missing, as well and it has relatively few quotes from the authors of the racialist theories themselves. I have no objection that they be included. But as the hierarchization of humans according to race is a grave and present danger, it certainly belongs to a wiki about peer to peer and the commons, which stands for the opposite values. Our site has never been NPOV, i.e. one perspective that claims to be neutral, but multi-perspectival. Thus the way to create balance is to integrate counter-vailing perspectives, and our site has always been open to this, in fact to date there has been zero censorship of additional material. If there is a real desire to turn it to a mono-perspectival encyclopedia, then I would propose to fork it, with one version that can move to a single perspective that is compatible with the new orthodoxies, and another that is open to various critical perspectives. The people would then have a choice, and I can continue to curate in the pluralistic philosophy that has been ours from the very beginning. --MIchel Bauwens (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)