Valeree and Kosack for Adminship
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:24 am
You wait ages, and two come along at once. It appears Ritchie his wants to try his luck again at this nominating lark. Hopefully he has at least checked them this time, the utter muppet.
The nom for Valeree, well, I basically see that as an admission it was Ritchie that RATTED on Fram, she is everything Fram was not, and Ritchie seeing her as fresh news blood for DYK is a direct stab at Fram, who made many enemies in that particular pond.
The nom for Kosack is just Ritchie being Ritchie, but in a less disguised fashion. Where he says "Kosack is just what I like to see in an admin", he's certainly not lying. A content creator with an inclusionist bent and an us and them attitude to those who would dare spoil the precious content.
There is a hilarious recent confluence between these two candidates. We are told Kosack likes rescuing articles on obscure footballers. He might not get along with his future bunkmate (yes, novice Admins are forced to go to SeaOrg for their rookie year and share bunks, you knew that, surely?).......
The nom for Valeree, well, I basically see that as an admission it was Ritchie that RATTED on Fram, she is everything Fram was not, and Ritchie seeing her as fresh news blood for DYK is a direct stab at Fram, who made many enemies in that particular pond.
The nom for Kosack is just Ritchie being Ritchie, but in a less disguised fashion. Where he says "Kosack is just what I like to see in an admin", he's certainly not lying. A content creator with an inclusionist bent and an us and them attitude to those who would dare spoil the precious content.
There is a hilarious recent confluence between these two candidates. We are told Kosack likes rescuing articles on obscure footballers. He might not get along with his future bunkmate (yes, novice Admins are forced to go to SeaOrg for their rookie year and share bunks, you knew that, surely?).......
A quick scan seemed to confirm suspicions that Kosack's footballer articles all seem to have a penis. If not at a gender/notability flashpoint, both will certainly encounter each other at DYK, so I hope there's no fighting!I was appalled by the proportion of BLP bios that are of athletes -- 46%! Almost half of the notable people alive today are notable due (or at least partially due to) their athletic accomplishment? That's astounding and very troubling. I was wondering how much of the difference in male vs. female biographies even historically could be explained by the fact we have so many athlete bios. Depending on the country, the disproprortion of men vs women professional athletes is still a major factor, and even in western countries it can only be likely catching up very recently. How much of the fact that we have only ~18% women bios can be explained by sports? Does wikipedia have a gender problem, or does wikipedia have a sports problem? --valereee (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the answer is more sportswomen. Doesn't that just make us sportipedia? But I do think it's worth editors knowing -- and, really, the reader knowing, and academics and journalists knowing -- that one of the reasons Wikipedia is so skewed toward men's bio is that it's skewed toward sports bio. We aren't excluding women. We're just including a lot of sports figures who aren't actually notable, and many of them happen to be men. It's not sexism, or not all of it. A significant amount of it may be sportsism. --valereee (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)