User:Tenmei/Delegitimisation as a tactic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Tsurugaoka_hachimangu_himorogi.jpg/640px-Tsurugaoka_hachimangu_himorogi.jpg)
This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not a Wikipedia article or the talk page for a Wikipedia article. If you find this page on any website other than Wikipedia, you are looking at a mirror site. This page may not be up to date, and the user who made this page may have no relationship with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page can be found at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenmei/Delegitimisation_as_a_tactic. |
Delegitimization as a tactic presents value judgments as facts [1] and as a self-justifying mechanism.[2]
It is axiomatic that to criticise is not per se to de-legitimise. Delegitimisation is qualitatively different. It can seem the same sometimes, but it isn’t. The one is valid, and the other is not.[3] Delegitimization is a specific kind of impediment or disruption of Wikipedia's collaborative editing.
- WP:FOC
Delegitimization refers to a process in which an editor and his or her work are strategically undermined. As a tactic, it is an attempt to deflect attention away from the substance of any contribution, focusing instead on the writer.
Delegitimisation may (a) inhibit an examination of valid issues and (b) redirect or re-frame a discussion thread. Often the context will be muddied or worsened by a others, who introduce a simplistic policy-based response instead of addressing the substantive content of a diff or a thread. This can have the effect of sidetracking a discussion into policy interpretations.
Within the ambit of delegitimization tactics are those processes which attempt to achieve "rebranding" within the wiki-community.
One form of delegitimisation is hard to spot, harder to anticipate and hardest to deal with because those engaging in it will fiercely deny they are doing so. The problem is marked by an unwillingness to listen to the other side, to acknowledge that someone else has a point, to embrace the notion that this is a complex matter that requires an investment in another way of looking at a controversial topic.[3]