https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=11965
What, exactly, would be the problem with that, you dumb cunt? Documenting noteworthy imagery is encyclopedic, even if many find it offensive.There are half a dozen Taliban flags on Commons. No one seems to have a problem with that.
Why would it be considered cool? What encyclopedic purpose does hosting such an image serve? Why do you think that expressing a personal dislike of the Taliban, is remotely the purpose of the Commons?But someone uploaded an image of the Taliban flag with a big red X on it. This is apparently not cool
The truth here is of course that unlike Commons, Wikipedia and the Wikishits, and Giraffe Dick is in undoubtedly one of them (because what is Wikipediocracy if not a forum for senior Wikipedia editors?), have long ago forgotten that they are meant to be an encyclopedia, not a personal platform for pursuing their own agendas, no matter how sound or popular those views may be.
Wikipediocracy members like Wikipedia Administrator Ritchie333 would undoubtedly be horrified to learn that userboxes and user pages are not meant to be used for activism, as a sensible extension to the broader principles that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and is not your personal web host.
Guess who has uploaded many a self made picture of random protest placards to Commons, to be presented on Wikipedia articles as if they were in widespread cultural use? You guessed it. Not for nothing, did the Wikipedia community newsletter recently trumpet Wikipedia's ability to get such images taken up by the lazy media. An activist's wet dream. An encyclopedist's nightmare.
Giraffe bollock goes on to say.....
Ha ha.Commons is not sensible. There are tons of these things for use in userboxes. This user hates brussel sprouts. It's all fine and dandy until someone makes a userbox that pushes someone's buttons. There was a kerfuffle about "traditional marriage" userboxes a while ago. If I recall correctly, they all ended up getting deleted.
Someone ought to do a blog post about userboxes.
I would be the logical person to write that blog post, because I was the only Wikipedia critic in the last few years, who seemed to even give a shit that Wikipedia editors were openly, proudly, displaying homophobic sentiments in their userboxes. Not the sort of thing that interests Wikipediocracy these days.
I am, of course, considerd to be crazy by Wikipediocracy, for making such sensible observations about the cult. And yet this was one area where Wikipedia quite happily got behind my criticism of that aspect of their warped activist culture, if only after seeing the huge potential for negative PR in allowing a non CNN sanctioned viewpoint on user pages, and so finally decided that yes, a user box that expresses support for traditional marriage, goes against everything Wikipedia tries to stand for, and what userboxes are nominally for.
1/2