Racist Wikipedia strikes again (Monisha Shah)
Posted: 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.
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...
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....
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....
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.
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.
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.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.
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...
See? I don't just make this shit up you know.Monisha Shah was the only non-white member of the committee – but she stepped down earlier this year.
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....
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.Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules wrote:If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.
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....
Shah is the poop. Because brown, geddit?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.
Of all the potential analogies!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.
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.