Wikipediocracy encounter a woman, and they are....confuzed

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Wikipediocracy encounter a woman, and they are....confuzed

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:28 am

It was all going so well. Ritchie333, the Wikipedia Administrator and middle aged white dude with an, uh, complicated relationship with the opposite sex, was yet again trying to bolster this idea that somehow women really should see him as an ally, rather than seeing him as an over bearing mansplainer and a bit of a sad prat at best, and well, someone you ask ArbCom to place a restraining order against, at worst. And whatever the fuck his ex did (a Wikipedia editor too) to him that melted his noggin.

(the restraining order was granted, and remains in place, despite Ritchie having applied for it to be lifted because he was quite sure the women involved had got over her sillyness and was ready and willing to work with his helpfulness)

Oh what a tale he had for his chums at Wikipediocracy....
Belle Delphine pretending to orgasm on the Main Page

A few days back, I noticed there was a DYK queued up with a lead image of a young woman pretending to orgasm. I didn't think this would go down very well when it hit the main page, saying "Is it a good idea to have a woman pretending to orgasm on the front page? Is it a good advertisement for Wikipedia? It is appropriate when we're still trying to address the gender balance after years of trying?" but was generally refuted and ignored with lots of WP:NOTCENSORED .... and lo and behold, all hell has broken out as soon as it got there. Colour me surprised.
(for future reference Ritchie, there is a sexism sub-forum over there, so you really should be posting this sort of stuff in there. Ignore the cobwebs, that's just Jake's idea of moving the forum into the 21st Century!)

At this time you're probably asking yourself why the fuck Wikipediocracy is even letting this Ritchie lunatic post anything on their forum about a woman, and yet still stands by their ban of me, the only person to have ever consistently produced any worthwhile Wikipedia+Sexism related content over there (and that includes calling out a fake feminist like Jess Wade for being so objectively crap and negligent, and playing the woman card to avoid being held to account).

As an aside, Jess is a woman Ritchie both adores and is mad at for blanking him when he graciously offered to guide her through the RfA process. I swear to God, he really is this bad. And this is just the shit I have personally witnessed. He's probably a veritable Wikipedia #MeToo scandal in the making, this guy.

So why are Wikipediocracy even entertaining the prat? Well, unsurprisingly, being formed almost exclusively from current or former Wikinerds, they too have a limited understanding of women, and an inability to spot an harasser or sexist or general all round creep.

So when Ritchie posts about a woman, well, you sit down with a nice bowl of popcorn, and you watch, hands over your face, peeking through your fingers, because you know what follows is going to be quite the horror show.

By now, hopefully you've done some basic research into who Ritchie is talking about. She's basically an internet celebrity who seems to have found a way of making nerds part with their money by appealing to their sad little fantasies that of course revolve around gaming and comic books and wanting to have sex with Japanese children, while also managing to make it seem at least in part be about satirising the internet in general and men's attitudes to women in particular.

Now we come to Ritchie. Once you know the subject, it becomes painfully obvious that if you are going to put this woman on the front page of Wikipedia, this is the most relevant image. It was actually a video, something that seems to have escaped Ritchie's attention. It is her breakout performance, by all accounts.

And so you come to the question, is it an appropriate subject for the Wikipedia main page? Well, yes. Why wouldn't it be? As everyone knows, the basic meaning of Wikipedia is not censored is not to permit pornographic or offensive content, it is to allow the presentation of educational material for an adult audience. And I've checked, women do actually agree with this interpretation. Pretty smart cookies that they are!

They don't necessarily all agree with it, but we're all at least working on the assumption that the best way Wikipedia proves it isn't sexist, is by not suddenly changing the definition of what Wikipedia is not censored means when it's a subject that is embarrassing to men and potentially informative to women (and boys and girls for that matter) looking for the not so hidden ways they exploit and objectify and fetishise women.

Which brings us to why Ritchie through women might be offended. Because of course hadn't even bothered to figure out what this was before trying to be Hero Protector. Technically it isn't even a case of a woman pretending to orgasm, it's a woman mimicking a very common Japanese cartoon depiction, so common that such mimicry for the purposes of sattire is also quite common. But hey, if you didn't know all that, well, that's what "Did You Know...." is for, right?

All Ritchie saw was a women pretending to have an orgasm, and he freaked out. Which is, of course, an ingrained sexist reaction. Women are allowed to have orgasms. And they are allowed to video them for purposes other than the sexual gratification of the male viewer.

I have heard it said, such a thing was even put in a Hollywood movie for the exact same purposes of comical sattire of sexist tropes, about a million years ago. Obviously it didn't work! And naturally, there is a whole generation or two for whom that never even happened, so in steps Wikipedia, as the modern day educational tool of the young.

So, with it well established by anyone with a brain that Ritchie was being a sexist dufus yet again, did any of the Wikipediocrats spot It? Well, not really.

The old white dude who runs the site was first to comment, and all he did was post the actual video. Well, it wasn't all he did, he made a crude (but perhaps on point) observation that his readership are gonna wanna see that video, and not have to remove one hand from their pants to go searching for it). Already, you feel a bit icky, on behalf of the ladies.

And he also included a comment which implied the woman was, well, not classy. We all know what he means. He slut shamed her. He is savvy enough not to outright do it, but it is what it is nonetheless. Perhaps he did it even without thought.

All for having made a video that she hadn't forced him (or Wikipedia) to even look at, much less give their entirely uninformed commentary on. How ironic that it is the Wikipedia biography of this woman, not the Wikipedia investigators, who have this video clip displayed in a proper context with an appropriate caption!

1/2
Last edited by Jake Is A Sellout on Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipediocracy encounter a woman, and they are....confuzed

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:29 am

2/2

AndyTheGrump is next, and shows an insight he isn't usually known for and shows he has read up on the matter, and correctly identifies Ritchie as having brought the forum a nothing issue. Although even he can't stop himself from rather arrogantly (and quite ignorantly) suggesting this woman needs (or even wants) Wikipedia's help in "boosting her career". She seems to be at the peak of her success, and all off her own bat, thank you very much, Mr angry white older male Wikipedia editor.

Yeet Bae, to their credit, recognises the factors in play regarding Ritchie's suggestion that women should be offended by this affront to their dignity. "I think it's a pretty lewd image, but maybe I am just old."

Jim, unsurprisingly agrees with Andy, because, well, you can probably guess, he too is just another old white dude. And then he rather creepily shares what his 18 year old daughter thinks, with the group. Which begs the question, did he even ask her if he could tell the internet what she's thinking? Daughter not possession, remember. He actually goes into some detail, enough detail that it does feel rather creepy even reading it, but read it you must, because it's sharing time, brought to you by Ritchie!

He sadly doesn't share enough that we can be reassured that his daughter's view that the video is not lewd but it is probably just a cringey attempt at clicks, factored in the full backstory. One can see how he might have biased his own daughter by telling her this woman is an unworthy person. Not for nothing does he literally not even dignify her in that post with a name or even a gender. She is, "that person". You honestly do wonder if they even see it. And no, it's not not age thing, because I'm quite probably just as old as Jim.

There then follows a quite disturbing line of posting where it seems both Vigilant and Jim, having still not really even bothered to research a woman who they have already acknowledged has an exceedingly well referenced biography, casually dismiss her with one curiosity plucked interpretation of who she might be.

In their mind, she's naught but a thoughtless/selfish/greedy amplifier of a harmful stereotype that posts women in games are only in it for the men. I can't discount it, but neither can I prove it. But as they say in Wikipedia, the preponderance of reliable sources that posit she is way more complex and disputed than that interpretation, means it is quite biased to present it as the only truth. Her only truth.

Methinks they do not quite get the idea that it might be deliberate? And you can understand why, these old white men presumably not even wanting to entertain the idea that a 19 year old woman might actually be better at cutting social commentary than they fancy they are, and might actually know what's damaging to women and girls better than they do? In the online space, where she earns a living and practically lives, in contrast to their slightly less involved use of it.

I may have to do further research myself, but while she has called herself a gamer girl, it strikes me that nowhere is it said she actually games. Which only adds to the suggestion she is posing as a gamer girl for either satirical purposes, or naked greed. Or the suggested blended narrative, where she simultaneously engages in the exploitation of the trope and its exposure/condemnation. And rather skillfully it seems.

ArmasRebane rather patronisingly pipes up and opines she might well be notable enough for the respected annals of Wikipedia inspite of her "innanity". They also try to invoke the excuse of being old as the reason they don't get it, but unless he means senility, there really is no excuse for not having noticed this woman is notable for the same reason any man on Wikipedia has ever been notable. She's got writeups in reliable sources left right and centre. Serious publications. The Guardian, no less.

One suspects they were simply getting ahead of themselves in preparation for some classic old white male rant about the folly of the young and how she's no doubt going to regret her life choices blah blah blah. In keeping with old mam Vigilant and old man Jim wittering on about how misguided she is. She should listen to her betters!

Well, all I can say is, she's made money, she's done notable things, and she's made people think. And she's still only 19. So shut the fuck up you dozy ignorant bastards.

Beeblebrox is next, and he almost surprises me by not saying anything offensive or dumb, at least about the women herself. He does rather embarrass himself by not recalling exactly why the quid pro quo system at DYK was brought in. But hey, it's only been an issue that Fram has grinded on for years and has been tangential to many an Arbitration Case, but why would he know any of that!?!? (seriously, as of right now this fucker is many people's ArbCom pick for his "institutional memory"! And if Wikipediocracy ever gets around to being a Wikipedia criticism site, they might realise pointing shit like this out might be a public service).

But I digress, and of course, as you would have predicted, Beeblebrox didn't leave the matter at hand without insulting the woman, calling her video "more stupid than offensive", which is hilariously both an insult whether she is a satirist or "pornographic actress", and definitely if both. And curiously suggesting some harm would potentially come from this video appearing on the Main Page.

He doesn't say what (which is always a good look in a potential Arbitrator, evasiveness of thought!), but I'd imagine it was to do with some sexist and entirely irrelevant point about how it's not Wikipedia's place to be letting children know orgasms exist (either in reality or because they are warped by gaming culture) or letting women be the agent of that education. That is, in his native Alaska at least, the role of the local priest!

The boys are now done discussing the woman, and have moved onto apparently more important things.

As usual, nobody has even noticed that as soon as he realised he'd screwed up, Ritchie departed stage left. If they were a Wikipedia criticism site, they would....well, you get the idea.

Wikipediocracy.

The people who think I'm the danger to women.

They are what they are, these old white men. They get no credit for not seeing it themselves, because well, they can still read, allegedly, and sexism should, in theory, given their alleged interest in Wikipedia criticism, be somewhere on their radar. And for a good while now, the internet has been awash with handy guides for people just like this, to help them identify and eliminate their ingrained sexism.

No doubt for pointing out the obvious flaws in their output and the reasons for it yet again, they'll have no sensible reply, and they're either going to pretend they never even saw this review of their latest handiwork, or they will profer some mindless insults.

They get so defensive around little old me with my little old facts and analysis. Dunno what it is.

So be it.

If you cannot re-educate, you just exterminate. So sayeth the Lord Almighty herself. Y'know, when she was having one of her bad days. ;)

HTD.

:flamingbanana:

User avatar
Newyorkbrad
Sucks
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:23 am
Location: The Big Apple
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Wikipediocracy encounter a woman, and they are....confuzed

Post by Newyorkbrad » Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:48 am

Mick, I will pay $$$ for a video of you vigorously ransacking your own dignity until exploding in la petite mort.

SkepticalHistorian
Sucks Fan
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 4:00 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wikipediocracy encounter a woman, and they are....confuzed

Post by SkepticalHistorian » Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:54 am

The Wikipedia bigots/ hypocrites took Raquel Baranow’s nude picture off her user page.

Not cEnS0rED

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipediocracy encounter a woman, and they are....confuzed

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:47 am

SkepticalHistorian wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:54 am
The Wikipedia bigots/ hypocrites took Raquel Baranow’s nude picture off her user page.

Not cEnS0rED
Of course they did. Anyone who doesn't "respect their authoritah" gets shoved out.

She was chucked almost a month ago---next step will be the obliteration of her userpage, possibly followed by a patroller carefully reverting ALL her edits. Valid or not.

Post Reply