People have been looking at Guy Chapman's contentious essay about who is worthy of editing Wikipedia in entirely the wrong way (namely asking their fellow Wikipedians, "is this contentious" and expecting them not to lie).
The best way to look at Guy's essay, is to point out how it shows Guy himself simply isn't committed
enough to objective fact, to be a fit and proper Wikipedian. And therefore, if this is the standard they are aspiring to, they are going to fall well short of building a compendium of objective fact.
If you believe the government should do nothing to mitigate climate change, I will respectfully disagree.
If all you can do here is respectfully disagree, then you are clearly not taking the threat of climate change seriously. It is universally acknowledged among scientists that government action (with the caveat that it has to be sound and effective action) is an absolute necessity, and it needs to have happened yesterday. No time there for respectful disagreement.......
If you believe that policies that make rich people richer will improve the lot of everyone through Trickle-down economics, I will respectfully disagree.
There is more than enough simple economic data out there now to prove this theory is bunk, and yet you are still only prepared to respectfully disagree?
If you believe that abortion should be illegal, I will respectfully disagree.
The mere fact you didn't put any qualifiers to this statement at all, suggests that what you think is merely going to be a case of respectful disagreement, would be seen by the vast majority as wholly offensive.
If you believe that socialised healthcare is evil I will respectfully disagree
Really? Someone says something as daft as that (seriously, who uses "evil" to describe any kind of healthcare system?), and you're still only prepared to respectfully disagree?
If you believe that the people should have the right to own automatic weapons, I will respectfully disagree
Wow. So even when there's not a shred of evidence that this would be a good idea, and a shit ton of evidence that it is bad, you still can't condemn it as outright lunacy?
If you believe that faith has a role in guiding government, I will respectfully disagree
As any self-respecting atheist would tell you, there is no room for disagreement here at all. It has no role, period. End of debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise is perhaps not an atheist, but agnostic.
If you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, I will respectfully disagree
The Supreme Court thinks it is a settled matter of civil rights, so how can you even begin to entertain it as merely an area where one can respectfully disagree? What other hard won civil rights are you not so sure about?
If you believe that a person should not choose to change the presenting gender of their body, I will respectfully disagree
Since the medical need for people to be able to make this choice is well established, it seems odd you still seem to think it is up for debate.
If you believe that God created the universe I will respectfully disagree
Again, this is not exactly what any self-respecting atheist would say about the nature of this so called debate. There is no debate.
If you believe that God guided the speciation of the planet, I will respectfully disagree
Now you're just trying to sound like an idiot......
If you believe that private prisons are a good idea, I will respectfully disagree
Interesting that you see potential for compromise on such a fundamental issue as what should motivate governments when denying people their basic human rights.
If you believe that capital punishment is acceptable, I will respectfully disagree
Capital punishment is and always will be an avoidable source of miscarriages of justice of the worst possible kind. And yet they you still think even that is an issue up for debate?
Overall, this paints a picture of a Wikipedia that will be tied up in useless 'good faith' debates about shit that every normal decent human being, certainly all subject experts, would think are settled issues of either fact or basic human morality. For rational people, these are the crazies who should not be let within a million miles of Wikipedia. Neither should Guy, for thinking they should.
Guy's essay merely reveals him as someone who either lacks the courage of his convictions, or doesn't have the right convictions. I am unsure which, as I can see him being too scared to reveal his true beliefs, but I can also see him being stupid enough to hold these views too.
Wikipedia has but two choices - go fully down the road Guy has hinted at and declare all non-thinkers as excimunnicado, but just do it properly, not in the half-measured way Guy has, or it can be respectful of everybody's right to edit, even those who think the things Guy thinks makes them incompetent.