User:Enkyo2/Delegitimisation as a tactic

Delegitimization as a tactic presents value judgments as facts and as a self-justifying mechanism.

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. Delegitimization is a specific kind of impediment or disruption of Wikipedia's collaborative editing.

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.

Dispute resolution
Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith.

However, for those who use delegitimization as a tactic, something else becomes the focal point -- not encyclopedia writing.

Illustrative examples
Delegitimization is a term used to describe is a kind of personal attack which is damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, e.g.,
 * Requests for checkuser, 2007 Individual delegitimization. "'  X   ' has been relentlessly pursuing false sockpuppet investigations against me and against '   Y   ' in an effort to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with him." (emphasis added)  Bad example because X had been pursuing accurate sockpuppet investigations; there was no delegitimization occurring, just an accusation.
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, 2007 Group delegitimization. "Nobody argues about "the gay cabal" pushing their agenda on Wikipedia. Nobody tries to delegitimize edits as the product of "the conservative cabal" or "the liberal cabal" .... People can post according to whatever points of view they want, but anybody mentioning a '  Z    cabal ' or similar is too paranoid ...." (emphasis added)  Better example because there is no accusation, only analysis

Historical context
In the course of history, individuals and groups have been targeted; and this caused the development of the "theory of delegitimization" as an academic framework.

For example, images of derogated target groups were published in the Italian Fascist magazine La Difesa della Razza in the 1930s. These were classified according to eight delegitimizing strategies, including trait characterisation, political labels, group comparison, segregation, outcasting and using a delegitimized group to stigmatize another group.

In 1975, "delegitimization" became a kind of "buzz word" when then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan accused the international body of delegitimizing Israel by passing a "Zionism is racism" resolution.

The paired concepts of "legitimize" and "de-legitimize" have gained currency in discussions about nuclear disarmament.