Dan Murphy

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.

Dan Murphy

Postby CrowsNest » Fri May 11, 2018 3:37 am

Wikipediocracy's resident journalist Dan Murphy sure has an interesting take on Wikipedia criticism.

In seeking to find something to say about how Fred Bauder "knows a thing or two about gender and power", he went straight for the jugular.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 50#p218450

As cutting as it was, and hopefully for his sake, true, a more relevant comment for a supposed Wikipedia criticism site would have surely been to bring this up as well, if not in its place.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... sa_Gabbert

.....but I suppose that would have only been fitting for the Wikipediocracy of 2012, where I found it. Back then, people there were a little more focused on Wikipedia, and a little less focused on hashtags and being offensivley progresssive.

Which was a good thing for the cause of credible Wikipedia criticism, since as Bauder shows, Wikipedia's hostility to women really doesn't come from the same place people like Dan and his shrieking cohorts like to attribute it to these days. Auerbach would get it, but unsurprisingly, Dan hates him too.

It's insane that these shriekers seem to genuinely think they know more about issues like Wikipedia's gender problem because it is now under the umbrella of a hashtag issue, than those who have left or been forced out of Wikipediocracy because they weren't prepared to put up with the butthurt antics of Dan and his ilk, who really don't seem to appreciate where their brand of progressivism went wrong.

All told, whatever his past glories, Dan is a very low value high risk poster for Wikipediocracy these days, even for a site trying so desperately hard to reposition itself as the natural home for weeping angels like him. I do wonder if his retreat is restricted solely to Wikipediocracy, or is part of a more general sulk. It says a lot that even after he got his way and certain people were removed from his view by Officer Zoloft, he didn't actually step up to the plate and fill the void.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Dan Murphy

Postby Kumioko » Fri May 11, 2018 4:19 pm

The worst thing is Bauder is still an admin on EnWP. So that just goes to show you the quality of the leadership when they continue to allow someone like that to participate as an admin.
#BbbGate
User avatar
Kumioko
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:54 pm

Re: Dan Murphy

Postby ericbarbour » Mon May 28, 2018 1:41 pm

I would trust Dan to speak the truth--he's gotten into trouble with WO's management over it before. Why he spends his valuable time posting there, I dunno.

And he's generally right about Bauder. One of WP's longest-serving administrators, Fred has done things that would get people fired in the real world. Over and over again. Even if you leave out Bauder's comments about women. He's a loose cannon--and they keep him anyway. I have ample proof.
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Dan Murphy

Postby CrowsNest » Tue May 29, 2018 5:27 am

Like I said, I hope for his sake that it is true. It wasn't really the point I was trying to make though.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Dan Murphy

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:53 pm

You are a disgusting and immoral creature.
Said to someone who was merely pointing out the obvious fact that Everipedia's approach to verifiability means that if you don't want a page about you on Everipedia, you'd have to scrub your digital footprint, so there was nothing they could use as a citation. As per their policy.

I fail to see what his problem is. This approach is fully compatible with 'right to be forgotten', and suffers all the limitations of that approach. Until such time as someone comes up with a better idea, it is the best the world has.

It is certainly better than Wikipedia's approach, but that isn't hard to acheive. There is nothing ethical about requiring people to be embarrassed above a certain artificial threshold of geographic scope, before they will choose to make their embarrassment go global. Those who Wikipedia doesn't expose to the globe, Google, their enthusiastic donor, takes care of.

Unlike Wikipedia, and in terms of PageRank, Google too, Everipedia is the only place in the entire internet where you will get your chance to put our your side of the story next to any verifiable content you dispute or otherwise find embarrassing.

People who virtue signal about how disgusted they are with Wikipedia's broken approach to privacy, by attacking those who seek to replace it with something better, are the repugnant people. No Wikipedia killer, means more Wikipedia. Murphy needs to get with the programme, and remember Wikipedia+Google is the problem. More Wikipedia-Google is no fucking solution to any question, except "How can we make the world suck more".

Still, not a surprise to see Wikipediocracy tolerating random abuse from someone who just pops in once every six months to say something like this (this was literally his next post after the one mentioned above). Murphy boy didn't say a word about Poetlister of course, who said something really shitty and creepy in that same thread. Something aimed squarely at undermining the right to be forgotten.

Apologies to those here who still think he's good people, I've literally never seen it. He went off reservation into fruit loop territory long ago, it seems to me.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Dan Murphy

Postby CrowsNest » Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:33 am

Another example do why Danny boy's reputation for speaking the truth is likely misplaced......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 7667#p7667

Protected by Jake, he can say whatever he likes.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Dan Murphy

Postby Graaf Statler » Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:50 am

OK, something went serous wrong. (Dutch)

But in base Der Spiegel is very relabel and we are talking about around fifteen articles. Shit happens, Dan. But in general the continental European press with Der Spiegel, Die Frankfurter Allgemeine and this Dutch NRC Handelsblad is very relabel. Style gender desk, is't it? Making a incident to the norm.
You must be a great journalist, that is for sure Dan!! Can you read German without Google translate by the way?
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Dan Murphy

Postby Graaf Statler » Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:09 am

What to think about a article about woman participation and the the relation to not enough lady toilets in Holland, Dan? Because the situation is here in Holland is really baaddddd!

Eens dat in het artikel geen dingen erbij moeten worden verzonnen die niet in de bron staan. Ik ben het er niet eens dat MeToo met name gaat over quid pro quo-misbruik, al snap ik dat de nadruk in de media daar wel op ligt. Volgens mij gaat het over alle vormen van seksueel geweld, en over de samenleving waarin minderwaardigheid van vrouwen en en seksualisering van vrouwen is ingebakken. Laurier (overleg) 22 dec 2018 22:22 (CET)

(About the society in which inferiority of women and and sexualisation of women is ingrained, underlined by me.)


Bron CC BY-SA 3.0

This spoilt lady, living in one of the best country's in the world to life in for a woman should be soooo deep ashamed! Look what happens to woman in the rest of the world, look what a life a woman has here! Be ashamed Laura!

Thinks can always better, I agree, but to talk as a Dutch woman in this way is the way a spoilt rich child in complaining who did't get a new iPad for Christmas because there is a newer type on the market than the one she got a half year ago for here birthday!
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Dan Murphy

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:25 am

This is yet another case in which Fram should be applauded for his choice of enemies, and unless Guido is actually a married lesbian, a piece of evidence against the claim that his Wikipedia actions are connected to misogyny/hatred of gay people.
More proof this so called journalist is anything but.

Pro-tip: Wikipedia Administrators aren't supposed to view users as their enemies.

But I guess when you look at the long history of Fram and Guido, well, what other word fits? I mean, you don't slyly accuse your friends of pedophilia, right? A properly performing Wikipedia Administrator takes no view, and they report suspected predators to Trust and Safety.

No surprise this dickhead is deaf/dumb/blind to the reasons people connect hyper-aggressive Administration with Wikipedia's sexist culture. It takes not very many brain cells to realize the connections between toxic masculinity and the self-styled pedophile hunter phenomena either. Yet more reasons to suspect Danny boy is not really a journalist, at least not one that gets work these days, except for certain publications. Men's Rights Monthly perhaps.

The fuck sort of nonsense would this douche even write about? Does anyone have an example? Will he ever commit his thoughts about Fram to print?
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm


Return to Wikipediocracy talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests