Dan Murphy
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 11:37 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.
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.