Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:35 pm

Why doesn't Monisha Shah have a Wikipedia biography?

Simple. She's not white.

I mean, sure, it could be for some other reason, but it really isn't.

To be specific, she had one for all of six weeks, but the Wikipedians deleted it on 26th November. That decision is being reviewed as I type, but anyone who thinks racist Wikipedians simply undo their mistakes just because you ask, you would be mistaken.

To give you an example of how obvious Wikipedia’s systemic racism is, glaringly obvious, until she stood down at the end of her five year term this year, Shah was the only non-white member of the eight person Committee for Standards in Public Life, an independent advisory panel to the UK Prime Minister. All other members, including the white man who replaced her, have a Wikipedia biography. In all likelihood, every single member since the Committee's creation in 1994, has a Wikipedia biography.

If you're thinking, oh, well, she must have been a complete nobody who has never been written about in independent reliable sources. And to that, I will simply say, fuck off you racist prick. A widely known disadvantage of being non-white, is that to the sources Wikipedia uses to write biographies, you tend to not exist.

But she has been written about reliable sources in sufficient depth to pad out what typically passes for a biography on Wikipedia, they're just not independent. They are, for example, the UK government's own biography of her, presumably published precisely because it's good for the public to know who it is who is advising the Prime Minister on ethics in public life.
Monisha is a media professional with a specific interest in the creative industries and higher education. Among her contributions to public life, she is Chair of Rose Bruford College of Theatre and Performance, Trustee of the Donmar Warehouse and of the Art Fund. She is also a serving member on the Board of Office for Students, member of the Ofcom Content Board and lay member of the Queen’s Counsel appointments panel. In her previous roles, Monisha has served as Trustee of Tate, National Gallery, Foundling Museum and ArtUK. She has also served on several panels as an independent member including on the challenge group for the Triennial reviews of the British Council and the British Film Institute.

From 2000-2010, Monisha worked at BBC Worldwide as Director of Emerging Markets in Europe, Middle East, India and Africa, and represented the BBC on subsidiary and joint venture boards. She holds a post-graduate degree from SOAS and an executive MBA from the London Business School. In 2009, she was elected Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.
As you can see, she is quite well qualified and should, by rights, have been written about by the media as a noteworthy person before now.

If you're thinking, well, if she's only been written about by non-independent sources, surely it wouldn't be a good idea for Wikipedia to write a biography about her. And to that I say, fuck off Linus. Clearly you don't know a lot about Wikipedia, otherwise you would already know that for specific categories of people, such as scientists, then precisely to counter media bias, Wikipedia happily grants them biographies, and sources them in large part to non-independent sources. Everyone is fine with this, even Wikipediocracy. So who are we to go against the grain? And if we did, we surely wouldn't start with the non-white person!

Sure, you typically need an independent source just to fulfil the criteria of proving they do actually exist and that they meet some arbitrary measure of importance, such as being a holder of an auspicious office.

Proof of existence in secondary sources is out there for Shah.

To quote The Guardian, an eminently reliable secondary source for Wikipedia, writing in August...
Monisha Shah was the only non-white member of the committee – but she stepped down earlier this year.
See? I don't just make this shit up you know.

And being on the Committee for Standards in Public Life is quite clearly an auspicious post. Certainly the equal of what typically gets a scientist a Wikipedia biography.

If you're the sort of bureaucratic prick who needs to be absolutely reassured that giving Shah the dignity of a Wikipedia biography doesn't violate some rule, rest assured, Wikipedia has a rule to cover exactly this situation....
Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules wrote:If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.
And so here we are. If you're the sort of bastard who thinks Wikipedia isn't improved by having a biography for Shah on the pretty obvious grounds the only reason she hasn't got one is most assuredly racism, well, I think you know what you are, sonny Jim.

Wikipediocracy had a look at this issue, a minor detail being that Shah's all too brief time in the Wikipedia sun only came about because she had that very same month been appointed Chair of Wikimedia UK (the charity that represents Wikipedia in the UK and does things like organise events and foster partnerships) and her Wikipedia biography was created by a member of that organisation.

Since the biography never even mentioned this post, it's a reasonable assumption that they too didn't like the idea of Shah being the only Chair in their history to have never been deemed worthy of a Wikipedia biography. Looks a bit, well, Wikipedia.

If you're the sortof dimwit who think that's relevant, aww, bless you, you naive little prick. If you knew the first thing about Wikipedia, you'd know how common it is for people who aren't well known, to have their biography created by someone who knows them. I wouldn't be surprised if four fifths of all Wikipedia biographies have come about this way. So yet again, even if we didn't like that, we're not about to start drawing the line at the non-whites, right?

Wikipediocracy lighting the issue up only made sure even more racist Wikipedia editors knew about the biography, since that place is effectively run for and largely contributed to by Wikipedia editors, especially the ones who have no love for the meat space side of the Wikipedia movement.

If you're thinking the hate site had only the best of intentions, bless you again, you naive fool. I mean, shit, it's not Stormfront, but their mask slips with regularity, enough that to seasoned watchers, you can see the signs....
It seems like the miscreants who shat the bed shouldn't get to vote on keeping the poop in the house for the rest of the summer.
Shah is the poop. Because brown, geddit?
Horse_Eye's_Back (T-C-L) is taking the horse whip to the WMUK types and is trimming the article back to what only reliable sources can support.
Of all the potential analogies!

Wikipedia is still manifestly racist, even after all the meda attention about how racist they are. Wikipediocracy don't care, because why would they? Never been all that interested in matters such as this. Only recently appointed a known racist as a Moderator on their forum. To quote the Daily Mail, "a bigoted oddball who spends rather too much of his life in darker corners of the internet.".

Quite.

A cult is what a cult does. They play by their own rules.

You would hope the so called investigators of Wikipedia would be up to the task.

You can see here, and pretty much all the time, they are most assuredly not.

Wikipedia, stop being racists. And Wikipediocracy, stop letting them get away with it!

Yours, a serious Wikipedia critic.

User avatar
Joe Crow
Sucks
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by Joe Crow » Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:47 pm

Obviously yer man Cockram is a massive racist so he is, but this here "poop" analogy might be a tad um, mallaithe, so it might.

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: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:40 pm

Side note: the minor admin who started this, SmartSE, was clearly a student at Cambridge when he/she/? started on WP in 2008. Possibly in botany, judging only from edit history.

RFA in 2011 was a big success. SmartSE clearly likes to suck up to other admins but doesn't do much content work, or much of anything since passing RFA. Extremely minor deletionist. I did not bother to poke around in the history for the book wiki.

Note that in 2010 SmartSE's early userpage history was blanked. Unquestionably covering up clues of real world identity. And SmartSE spent a lot of time editing the mephedrone article, and continues to jealously guard it today....

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

Re: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:07 am

A Cambridge graduate symbolises Wikipedia's systemic racism?

Well, there's a surprise.
...If her appointment on CSIPL was as important as you seem to think it is, how come there was absolutely no coverage about it in RS? .... SmartSE (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
RACISM, you dufus.

:roll:

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

Re: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:32 am

Joe Crow wrote:
Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:47 pm
Obviously yer man Cockram is a massive racist so he is, but this here "poop" analogy might be a tad um, mallaithe, so it might.
I don't follow old bean. Must have been lost in translation.

All be it, my mick is a little rusty.

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

Re: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:37 pm

Racist Wikipedia in full combat mode....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1058118543

That's Levivich wiping out the entire existence of the complaint of racism, including people's replies.

Levivich of course is one of the racist Wikipedians who doesn't want Shah to have a Wikipedia biography....
Delete - no GNG sources, end of story..... Levivich 14:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
....and is fighting HARD to make sure of it.

So hard, he doesn't let's simple thing like being full of shit stop him....
The burden is on those advocating for the use of a source to show the source is an RS
What utter bollocks. The reality is the complete opposite, especially post Daily Mail ban. You can use a source on the good faith grounds that you know what you're doing and have read the policy, and only if someone objects, do you hash out whether or not it is an RS, and that necessarily starts with you saying why it isn't. There's no pre-approved list of reliable sources, and that's such a basic and fundamental truth, the only explanation for an experienced editor like Levivich even saying it, is because he's trying to pull a fast one.

Now, why is he trying to lie here? Why on Earth would he be objecting to the very idea the Asian Express newspaper is a reliable source?
Asian Express Newspaper - UK's largest circulated & online free Asian newspaper dedicated to reporting news from South Asian communities
Well, gee, that didn't take too long to figure out, did it.

Racists gonna be racist, end of story.

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

Re: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:09 pm

Ultimately though, the last thing Wikipedia needs is another thin BLP on someone who isn't a public figure; such articles cause nothing but trouble for Wikipedia and the subject in the long run.
:roll:

Utterly blind to their racism. Harry is of course a typical Wikipedian, a white Western male, so it's unsurprising he doesn't see how ignorant and offensive his comment would be to a successful non-white woman.

And thanks to scum Levivich, they never even need to be confronted by it.

HEY WIKIPEDIOCRACY, ARE YOU PROUD OF YOURSELVES?

No, don't answer.

You know what you are.

User avatar
rog
Sucks Fan
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am
Location: the dark and nasty regions
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by rog » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:02 pm

You seem to be the expert, Mick, so perhaps you can tell us whether socking as a black person is racist or not?


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =963041999

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

Re: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:48 pm

rog wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:02 pm
You seem to be the expert, Mick, so perhaps you can tell us whether socking as a black person is racist or not?


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =963041999
Your lack of expertise is showing Michael.

You don't know Mick isn't black, you can't prove Mick is Brian, and you can't prove Brian is me. Or that I am Mick. I will, as ever, neither confirm or deny.

Fuck me if I can't even see a reason why posing as a black person to test their reactions to complaints of racism is somehow wrong. It's not like it's black face, since as we know, on Wikipedia, Nobody Knows You're Not A Dog. They say that, blind to the racist overtones of assuming people are dogs until prove otherwise. Prove your loyalty, dog! Bad Krypto! Down Krypto!

Do I have a particular need to deny that is me? Or any particular need to claim it as one of my successes? Either directly, or directed, or even as mere inspiration.

Come on Michael. Educate us on the right way for a black person to engage with Wikipedia. I'm guessing you want them to verify their black status, right? Wear a little badge. Send their black identity papers to your mate Beeblebrox, up there in Alaska. So that he can stamp them, and of course, fax a copy to you knicker sniffers at Wikipediocracy, so you can perform your contracted duties.

Neither confirm or deny, will always be my stance. A dimwit like you clealry doesn't appreciate the full benefits of such a thing to serious Wikipedia critics. A dimwit who wanted to be anonymous, until he made the mistake of assuming you can fuck with the Daily Mail and somehow get away with that shit. Mamma bear is very protective of her cubs.

I do it here, in this specific example, just to keep foremost in people's minds, so they know what you are, that your standard of evidence in all these claims, is no better than the average Wikishit. Kool Aid chugging tards like Hemenchuia. And we all know here, at the home of serious Wikipedia critics, why they want people who point out when Wikipedia editors are being racist, to be lumped together as one single Big Bad Bogeyman. Someone who can be dismissed because they're ILLEGAL.

Why was Brian banned from Wikipedia for, anyway? Do you know?

I know. Legally speaking, and thanks to Vigilant's brave stand against serious Wikipedia criticism, we now all know that such bans are issued for "any reason", including "no reason at all". Legally proven now.

So you tell me, Micheal. Was Brian banned for posing as a black person. Or were they banned for being a black person.

You don't know, and what everyone knows, you probably don't even care, you racist prick. I mean, if you have a view on whether "Krypto Wallace" should be banned for posting stuff like.....
What percentage of editors of this [Black Lives Matter] project are black, and how does that compare to the demographics of the USA, or even the world?
....,well, fuck me if it's more likely to be aligned with Wikipedia's desire to cancel them, right? Feel free to deny it. The floor is yours, "rog".

Racists gonna be racists. The Daily Mail hates racists. Has run award winning campaigns to ensure such cowards are identified and face their day in court. Tracks down the people who run in packs, seeking to intimidate and indeed do harm to those they see as inferior, for reasons of warped ideology, if not just a poor upbringing and general boredom. Maybe someone needs to pay your mummy another visit, see if we can learn more about your backstory, ascertain who to blame for you being you.

It's pretty easy to see why attacks like Krypto Wallace irk you so, Micheal. Stick in your mind. Burn a hole in your hard drive. You should maybe think twice before letting people know what you're really afraid of. A bad person might exploit that.

You don't know me at all. Have you figured out yet how you apparently came to know where I come from, for example? I'll keep asking until you admit it's a figment of your imagination, or pony up the goods.

I know you though, Michael Cockram, poster of racist tropes on his Facebook account, user of "Daily Mail tactics" to achieve the ban of the Daily Mail on Wikipedia, and impersonator of a person who would have the standing to be acting as a source for a Guardian journalist trying to write about said ban as if it had genuinely been about what Wikipedia claims it was about, rather than what you know I know it was.

I've had your number for years, and don't you forget it.

Wikipediocracy made you a Moderator. You!

You didn't have to hide who you were to land that job I'm guessing. Racist sexist wanker who socks for mere shits and giggles, angry that Wikipedia banned him for being too much of a deceitful prick even for that warped cult, not remotely willing to give him the Hero status he thought he deserved, someone so loyal to Wikipedia's goals to be biased as fuck and call that neutrality, he had Jimmy Wales himself prepared to fund his legal defence.

What better proof they are what we say they are.

Wikipedia sucks. Wikipediocracy sucks. You suck.

When you prove you can be a serious Wikipedia critic, then you can have nice things.

You can be privy to the SECRETS of my clandestine group.

We meet Tuesdays and Thursdays. ;)

Until then, know your place. Under my boot, ya wee prick.

That's right, whitey. It's reparations time!

Although to be fair, do you even count as white? How do you self identify?

I don't want to offend.

:lol:

User avatar
rog
Sucks Fan
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am
Location: the dark and nasty regions
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)

Post by rog » Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:21 pm

lmao

I have never encountered anyone who is easier to troll than you, Mick.

You ought to count yourself extremely lucky that the Farms don't know about you yet.

Post Reply