https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 16&t=13014
The Wikipediots are stoicly defending it, even as the growing media coverage of her creepy if not downright disturbing relationship with her fandom is now seeing sponsors dump her.
It is perhaps a sign of more scandals to come regarding this new breed of celebrity, since it is only now that sufficient time has passed and the now adult fans are looking back at their childhoods and asking, rightly, wtf, and speaking their truth to the media (or rather, to the internet, then being happy to go on record in the media).
Would that this could also happen with the relationship between Wikipedia and it's often barely out of short pants devoted army of defenders, but alas, with critics like Wikipediocracy, that will never happen. Old white dudes making twelve her old girls cry because they get caught up in the war between those who want Eric Corbett to be all the asshole he wants to be, and clear and unequivocal Wikipedia policy, is not fucked up at all, to those creeps. We know whose side they are on.
A massive advantage the Defenders of Ballinger's hagiography have, is the cult within a cult of the Featured Article gang, even though Balligner isn't one. It might as well be though. One compelling argument they have, is that "quality" articles do not feature "controversy" sections. The content gets woven into the article. This is what is allowing them to ironically dump the negative content far out of the way of details of her Career, under Reception, and only after all the glowing content.
Wikipediocracy only single out Sslivers for scrutiny. Obvious fanboy he may be, and that is why people should be far more interested in the conduct of SchroCat, who is clearly only in this fight because he thinks he is standing up for Wikipedia's editorial standards.
Which is all well and good, but since he is a fully paid up member of the Eric Corbett gang, his main weapons are hostility and intellectual dishonesty. Never has someone looked more hypocritical than SchroCat lecturing others about the need to comment on content not editors. He must be acutely aware of how many eyes are eventually going to be on this issue, since his usual aggression has been tempered to a mere arrogant bluster. Tim Riley is there too, a long standing problem with the Corbett gang being tag teaming, as they follow each other around offering unflinching supporting to each other's arguments in a clear quid pro quo arrangement.
Wikipediocracy says nothing about these aspects of how Wikipedia editors are successfully whitewashing Ballinger's career and ensuring she can bilk as much money as she can before it all comes crashing down, because these are all methods of collaboration and editing that they approve of.
Wikipediocracy stand for a Wikipedia where the Corbetts, SchroCats and Rileys are elite because they say they are. They stand for a Wikipedia where elites are a thing. They stand for a Wikipedia where this comment is legitimate.....
The only grey area on Wikipedia, is that reliably sourced information such as this.....It’s a grey area with WP:BLPs, where the policy prefers information is left out until it’s solid, rather than taking a punt with a caveat. Don’t forget this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker, so if the information is a little behind the times then it’s not a flaw. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
...is inadmissible for INSERT ANY REASON YOU LIKE when the BLP is about someone Wikipedia editors like, perhaps a lot, but if it's someone they hate, well, in it goes, no questions asked.As fans continue to grapple with their feelings, some brands that partnered with Ballinger are distancing themselves. TMZ reported last week that two brands, ZocDoc and skincare company OneSkin, had cut ties with Ballinger.
ZocDoc confirmed to NBC News that it was pulling its ads from Ballinger’s podcast, Relax! OneSkin did not respond to a request for comment from NBC News.
As NBC News notes, this isn't some new controversy that has just broke. Negative stories about Ballijger have been circulating for years.....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... ideos.html
So Wikipediocracy have some FUCKING NERVE telling us THRRE YEARS LATER that, hey guys, these Wikipedia people seem intent on whitewashing this internet celebrity's reputation.
Wikipediocracy are a threat to children as much as Wikipedia is. This case is not much different to the Marek Kukula problem, which whether they like it or not, is never going away. According to Wikipedia, Kukula is an upstanding citizen, someone whose YouTube videos you would be happy for your child to engage with. According to the internet, Kukula is a convicted consumer of child pornography. According to Wikipedia, Ballinger is a great role model and there is little reason to not want your children from becoming fans of her work, or even emulate her career. The internet knows different, and has done for years.
Arguably people like Ballinger are a product of twenty plus years of people not being held accountable for what they do online, the sheer ease with which they can ensure their public image and the private reality can be kept separate, for nakedly capitalist reasons. Not a new problem, but a serious issue given the deep penetration of the internet into the lives of children. Wikipedia has been the shining turd on the hill in this Age of Irresponsibility.
In these fucked up times, being a breakout internet celebrity is more important than being the Astronomer Royal. Only one of these people ever had state sanctioned access to your kids for being a worthwhile role model, and it sure as shit 'ain't Ballinger. Yes, Wikipedia being able to whitewash Ballinger is a serious issue. But despite what they are claiming now, this is a situation that is in no small part down to the historical and indeed current activities of Wikipediocracy themselves.
They most likely only ran with this because they have some reason to need to remove Sslivers from Wikipedia. Once you understand why he chose to keep his allegations out of the public eye, untested in the court of public opinion much less an actual court, you understand everything there is to know about Wikipedia and the people who make it what it is.
Moderator note: This post has been shortened to be more readable, the original version can be found here.
