Paid editor and gender activist combine to spam Wikipedia

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Paid editor and gender activist combine to spam Wikipedia

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:21 am

So, the blogger "Gender Desk" posted this.....

https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2018/10/15/hwages/

......ostensibly a complaint that Wikipedia has not got an article on a December 2016 viral video called "Hwages", which is a protest video about women's rights in Saudi Arabia. There was no other reason to blog about this other than Saudi Arabia was in the news.

Enter Wikipedia user Savlidrim, who has been commenting at Gender Desk on and off for a while now. He's a former Wikipedia Administrator who got stripped of his Admin rights in an embarrassing Arbitration case where it was exposed that he colluded with another editor to abuse his advanced privileges to enrich himself. He didn't earn a lot, but it did demonstrate he couldn't be trusted, and whether through malice or just incompetence, that he has a very loose grasp on Wikipedia policy, or indeed ethics in general.

Salviidrim is a pretty cool customer. I challenged him over his abuses of Wikipedia policy at the supposed critic forum Wikipediocracy......

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... =14&t=8877

.....on the obvious grounds that he would have been banned had he been an ordinary editor. Known as the "Super Mario Problem", Administrators who abuse the trust of their fellow Wikipedians are essentially given a second chance, being merely busted down to editor. It's pretty fucked up, if only for the fact being an Administrator effectively means you are presumed trustworthy (where ordinary editors are not) and in exchange for that trust you are theoretically held to a higher standard (so they should be more harshly sanctioned than an ordinary editor caught doing the same thing, not less).

Since Wikipediocracy isn't a serious critic forum, he was of course allowed to ignore these issues, and just say what he wanted to say, which was the same sort of craven self-serving bulllshit he was offering up on Wikipedia. Indeed, many of the scumbags there were in total agreement with the idea he had done nothing wrong, at least no more than a misdemeanour, and bizarrely that he should be treated with leniency because he is (was) a trusted user. But they are Wikipedians, so being thick/unethical, comes with the territory.

Indeed, Salvidrim was saved further embarrassment when the idiots who run Wikipediocracy (and happily attend their conferences in the interests of developing good relations) decided to agree with Salvidrim that the thread needed locking. And on Wikipedia, he was indulged in his desire to control his narrative by being allowed to resign. In the same way a thief caught with the money in his hands, is allowed to plead guilty. You won't even find a reference to his crimes in the official log which records his demotion. You need to know precisely where to look in the bowels of Wikipedia, to find the truth.......
For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_of_Mister_Wiki_editors#Salvidrim!_desysopped

Anyway, presumably inspired by Gender Desk, Salvidrim duly created a Wikipedia article for this video......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =864367222

....and his comment to Gender Desk indicated he already knows he has probably just landed Wikipedia with an unsuitable article.
Let’s see if it survives
Gender Desk wasn't bothered, naturally, and was quite tickled in fact......
Oh too funny.
.....and she proceeded to help him fix his typos, lament that she couldn't find any images to illustrate the article, and otherwise give Salvidrim useful feedback on his new creation.

Now, I won't be so bold as to say this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. But they have historically taken the view that they don't need articles on something which was in the news for a brief period but was then quickly forgotten, as the references provided indicate (all from 3-6 January 2017). He's tried to mask this by including older material related to the producer in the form of a past video, but in the eyes of Wikipedia policy, that only boosts the producer's case for needing an article, not this video.

What Wikipedia requires, because, well, it is (or rather, aims to be) an encyclopedia, not an activist blog, music promotion service or historical index of Youtube videos, is proof this video had significant impact and/or lasting historical relevance. On the former, it is worth noting that according to Wikipedia's "List of most-viewed YouTube videos"......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ube_videos

......"Hwages" is not remotely remarkable simply in terms of page views. On the latter, while Wikipedia often has trouble with people creating articles on current events straight away, eighteen months is more than enough distance to be able to establish the sort of persistence/significance they require.

There is of course another reason other than views and persistence that this video might have special significance. However, even though the article for the video links to the Wikipedia article "Women's rights in Saudi Arabia", there is no corresponding link the other way. There is no mention of "Hwages" in that article, not even at that hands of Salvidrim, which rather suggests the video has not had the required significance to that topic, that would suggest it needs a Wikipedia article.

Since Wikipedia is (theoretically at least) a digital reference work of interlinked information, the Wikipedians wisely take the view that if you can't even justifiably mention a topic in the nominal 'parent' article, then it is unlikely it warrants a standalone article. To not even be mentioned in that article, suggests the Wikipedians deem it to be trivia. That potential oversight could of course also be down to the fact Wikipedians just don't care about women's rights in Saudi Arabia, but the length of the article suggests otherwise. Indeed, the article does mention other videos which clearly had impact.

Something Gender Desk probably could have investigated and blogged about, if she was minded to exploit the current news focus on Saudi for her own purposes (which is ostensibly sexism on Wikipedia), is the history of the Wikipedia editor Noloop/Mindbunny, a woman who was the author of much of the content of that article in women's rights in Saudi, before they were apparently harassed off of the sitee in very familiar fashion......
These editors, and others, and have sent an endless parade of demands for blocks and whatever against me, due to content disputes. It is getting abusive. Mindbunny (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yet another victim of a flashmob, with the final blow delivered by Fram, a borderline psychopath who, as of this year, is still summarily executing the women of Wikipedia......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 6556#p6556

It is kind of sad that the noble cause of Wikipedia criticism has come to this. Quite what she thinks she achieved here is beyond me. All this blog post did, is ensure that when people search for "Hwages", they are more likely to view the incomplete and insufficient coverage Wikipedia provides, rather than the excellent information to be found on reputable and trustworthy sources like the BBC. If she has designs on using Wikipedia to advance the cause of women's rights in Saudi Arabia, and she clearly has, then she isn't even very good at that, given the likelihood of this article being swiftly deleted.

And in concert with Wikipediocracy, she has probably assisted someone who has absolutely no business being a Wikipedia editor, to regain his former status (before his disgrace, he had designs on even higher Wikipedia offices). Wisely, Salvidrim has of course declined to note anywhere on Wikipedia where he got the idea for, and indeed help with, this Wikipedia article. Sucks to be a woman working for Wikipedia, as usual. Gender Desk being both an activist and probably banned editor, Wikipedians (again, theoretically) are meant to take a dim view of this sort of thing. We of course can't even rule out the possibility he is still a paid editor, and his uncertainty over whether to make a Wikipedia article for the video or its producer, reflects not his incompetence, but his desire to do whatever makes him the most money.

These are very strange things for her to be doing, as someone who is apparently a fierce critic of both Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia. Pointing out Wikipedia doesn't have an article on something is one thing (ad it isn't much if you can't properly demonstrate they are not following their own rules by not having one, as much as you might disagree with them because of your activist viewpoint), but welcoming a scumbag like Salvidrim in creating one for you is quite another.

Do not expect her to comment on these thoughts of course, she considers herself above criticism. Much like her new Wikipedia BFF.

Aspiring serious critics be warned. Don't even think about welcoming the help, assistance or sympathy of Wikipedia scumbags, it will only compromise you. Your job is to tell the word how these scumbags get away with what they do, what they are hiding and which bogus critics help them in that effort, as I hope we are doing here (with not one hint of thanks from Gender Desk for that). And certainly don't welcome improvements to Wikipedia, if they are not genuine and long lasting. Unless you want to be known as someone for whom criticism of Wikipedia is secondary to your desire to abuse it for activist purposes, the same way countless other Wikipedia scumbags have.

Take heed.

HTD.

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: Paid editor and gender activist combine to spam Wikipedi

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:37 am

CrowsNest wrote:.....on the obvious grounds that he would have been banned had he been an ordinary editor. Known as the "Super Mario Problem", Administrators who abuse the trust of their fellow Wikipedians are essentially given a second chance, being merely busted down to editor. It's pretty fucked up, if only for the fact being an Administrator effectively means you are presumed trustworthy (where ordinary editors are not) and in exchange for that trust you are theoretically held to a higher standard (so they should be more harshly sanctioned than an ordinary editor caught doing the same thing, not less).

Oh, they get second and third and fourth and fifth chances too. David Gerard has at least one undisclosed administrator-level sockpuppet right now. He made a total fool of himself more times than I can count--yet he is still "tolerated". And how many times did shit-twizzlers like Oliver Keyes or Russavia or Ryulong or Sceptre or Will Beback or MONGO or Cirt change usernames, go thru various RFAs (with success or not), beg for forgiveness, etc. etc. Once you're in this sick little gang, it's for life. Straight Mafia behaviour.

Since Wikipediocracy isn't a serious critic forum, he was of course allowed to ignore these issues, and just say what he wanted to say, which was the same sort of craven self-serving bulllshit he was offering up on Wikipedia. Indeed, many of the scumbags there were in total agreement with the idea he had done nothing wrong, at least no more than a misdemeanour, and bizarrely that he should be treated with leniency because he is (was) a trusted user. But they are Wikipedians, so being thick/unethical, comes with the territory.

And THAT should settle any argument about Wikipediocracy's dysfunction. They cannot be trusted anymore, period, end of discussion, okay???

Post Reply