View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:43 am




Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Mansplaining Wikipediocrats 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
This is Anroth talking to BrilleLyle.....
Quote:
You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word punitive, or you genuinely think that AFC is about punishing people for daring to create articles. AFC is about exerting a minimum of quality control so new articles are not complete shambles. Given the amount of utter crap that makes it on anyway, anything that mitigates the flood is bonus.
I'm sure this woman, who racked up nearly 50,000 edits over five years in Wikipedia, appreciated being told the meaning of words or how Wikipedia processes work. The explainer is of course too much of a coward to let people know what his Wikipedia identity is, so we can confirm our suspicions that he is thick as a plank. No confirmation is really needed to appreciate he is a man.

Unfortunately for him, those who do know how Wikipedia works, will have no trouble seeing how AfC is punitive. For no other reason than they do not complete a Wikipedia internship, or are otherwise not confident, novice editors are forced to accept their work being jewtagged and dumped in a ghetto, where they are told someone will get around to reviewing it in two months, if they're lucky. Someone who has not been asssed by the Wikipedia community as having any particular skills, or indeed the right attitude, to be undertaking that task.

Given the power it places in that individual's hands, it is arguably the job in Wikipedia which carries the most responsibility for the least amount of accountability. AfC is therefore correctly seen as a lawless hellscape overseen by Judge Dredd types. The rest of Wikipedia being only slightly less hellish/Dreddish. One thing nobody could reasonably call it, is an exercise in basic quality control. There is an apt description for a Wikipedia process which allows Wikipedians to freely ignore basic core policies like WP:NOTBURO, WP:AGF and WP:PRESERVE, and that is an abomination.

It's a shame the man who Administrates Wikipediocracy, Jake, allows this sort of poster to do what they do. Even worse that they even agree with them. Not as bad as the fact he saw a fit to say this about her perceptions of what "grosses her out" when looking at Wikipedia, namely a majority white male population editing pages like Donna Strickland's biography (prevented from being created prior to her Nobel prize because a jackbooted AfC reviewer did not follow WP:NOTBURO, WP:AGF and WP:PRESERVE).
Quote:
I still think it's because they're all a bunch of preening narcissists, but it's easy to see how lots of women would have a hard time separating the "preening narcissist" characteristic and the "white male" one, especially among the Wikipedia user community.
Not quite mansplaining, but a classic example of denying a women her right to see the world as she sees it, not because it is manifestly incorrect by any objective measure, quite the reverse, but simply because it threatens the patriarchy.

Not for nothing do I say Wikipediocracy is trying its hardest to flatter Wikipedia by imitation. This very same day, Anroth was complaining to Jake about how he had previously moderated one of his comments to remove personal attacks, which he saw as Jake preventing them from getting their feelings hurt. With no sense of irony, his precise words were......
Quote:
Seriously Jake, if you are going to use mod powers to edit my posts because someones feelings got hurt, perhaps do something useful and mute the trolls eh?
Mute the trolls indeed.

It's stuff like that which makes me assume that if we did know Anroth's Wikipedia account, we'd find a classic case of a badly behaving Wikipedian, someone who regularly violates WP:CIVIL, and does so from a position of entitlement and privelage. The exact sort of man who makes Wikipedia look like a hostile environment to be in, where mansplaining will be the very least women have to contend with.

That incident was a fight between two men. It hasn't even occurred to Jake that what Anroth said to BrilleLyle here might require a similar moderating action to spare her feelings. Perhaps not outright deletion, but a condemnation of some sort, surely? Perhaps he just does not see it. Perhaps she needs to call herself Brian before he would.

As Jake was forced to admit recently, as he observed another of his established male Wikipedian members fighting with another male poster (who was incidentally insulting his opponent by questioning his masculinity, a grave offence in the patriarchy).....
Quote:
Remember, I suck at this job, so if you guys can't put a lid on it yourselves, there's just no telling what I'll do.
Sadly, he was joking. The depressing prospect, at least for any women looking to participate on Wikipediocracy, is that he really does think he is doing a good job. Just as most Wikipedians do. Let the boys be boys, be that if they are fighting amongst themselves, or exercising their male privelage over women. In only one case, should you even find your parenting voice.

Jake would make a fine Wikipedia Administrator. I fear he prefers the more bountiful opportunities as Head Man on Wikipedia's little brother.


Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:33 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2716
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
The depressing prospect, at least for any women looking to participate on Wikipediocracy, is that he really does think he is doing a good job. Just as most Wikipedians do. Let the boys be boys, be that if they are fighting amongst themselves, or exercising their male privelage over women. In only one case, should you even find your parenting voice.

Jake would make a fine Wikipedia Administrator. I fear he prefers the more bountiful opportunities to do want they do as Head Man on Wikipedia's little brother.

They have of course fooled her in every way they could. Erika is a real feminist, not a fake wiki feminist, named by me as gender bitches.
We did anything to warn here crow, but she didn't believe us. Wikipedia does nothing for woman and minorities, it are only words, words, words. And that is the true.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:45 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
The fuck is this bullshit?
Eagle wrote:
Wikipedia has always had problems dealing with technical expertise, and the gender gap campaign makes the worse. Everyone wants more female scientist biographies to be added to en:WP. But being a woman does not automatically give you the needed expertise to write a good biography, and certainly does not put the scientist's accomplishments into context. It seems to me, if you want to write a good article about a female chemist, you will get a better article with a chemistry major writing it (regardless of whether the editor is a man or a woman.)
Classic Wikipediocracy ingrained sexism. As it goes on Wikipedia, it goes on Wikipediocracy too.

I mean, fuuuuuuuck. How thick do you need to be, not to appreciate that being a Chemistry major doesn't reduce, much less remove, the ingrained sexism that produces the sort of effects that have been seen in Wikipedia text?

To remove ingrained sexism from Wikipedia's biographies on chemists, you need an editor base that is 50/50 male/female, as well as 100% qualified to write a Wikipedia biography on a chemist. And some people might say that requires a little more than even being a Chemistry major, given the studies that show students are only really capable of writing at an undergraduate reading level.

Not rocket science, this shit. Still beyond the wit of Wikipediocracy. Eagle is, unsurprisingly, obsessed about how identify politics is ruining Wikipedia. Sure. Whatever you say.


Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:03 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.