Are women just temperamentally unsuited to Wikipedia?

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Are women just temperamentally unsuited to Wikipedia?

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 03, 2021 1:20 pm

So, the user Less / Unless is the latest person to sail through the Admin recruitment process, largely because they're at the stage where they just need anyone with a pulse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ess_Unless

And so I would have entirely ignored her, had I not seen her write this frankly remarkable post RfA comment, which I have deconstructed.
Thank you to all of those who has devoted their time to participate in recent RfAs. I wanted to say how important this has been for me but also how stressful. The candidate’s position is very vulnerable from a number of perspectives and I wanted to talk about them.
Vulnerable is a very wierd term to use in regard to this process. Especially for a woman, in these times.
The first and probably the most emotionally draining fact is that you are being scrutinized by such a diverse community and it’s impossible to be perfect.
Nobody is looking for perfection. But part of the process is about weeding out the sort of person who says things like "emotionally draining" in reference to a relatively simple question and answer session, speaking as it does to their likely inability going forward to deal with the sort of shit a Wikipedia Administrator has to deal with, up to and including very stressful situations, such as deciding how to handle real world harassment as a possible first responder.
I fully support the idea that the community should pay careful attention to the candidate’s activity because adminship is a huge responsibility, but this doesn’t make it easier.
Make your mind up, princess. You either support candidates being subjected to scrutiny, or you want an easy ride.
Especially frustrating is the fact that you can’t explain yourself or clarify things in the discussion section or on the talk page (technically you can, but there's a strong feeling it's inappropriate). Meanwhile the majority of the concerns are voiced there. Thoughts and ideas evolving in those discussions are just to observe and this is very nerve wracking as some of them are just misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
Again, part of the reason for the process is to weed out those people who have the strength of character to know when it is appropriate to stand back and let the community identify and resolve concerns to its satisfaction, and when a situation is serious enough what it warrants a direct clarification from you. Someone unable to know when to stay silent, and when to intervene, is unlikely to be able to offer any productive assistance to dispute resolution on Wikipedia.

People who find the prospect of sitting back and letting RfA just do its thing to be "nerve racking", probably don't have what it takes to be a Wikipedia Administrator, period.
The only sphere of your influence is the answers to the questions, apart from that you feel quite helpless.
Jesus. Seriously girl, have you got a therapist? Because you sound quite fragile. You seem too fragile to even be editing Wikipedia, never mind being an Administrator.
It’s also worth mentioning that written communication has a number of draw backs – especially under pressure it’s hard to achieve perfect wording that would definitely be unambiguous. We all have different backgrounds, we come from different communities and countries – these things influence what we say, how we say it and what we mean.
Lolwut? Written communication lends itself well to being clear and having the time to craft the right response. And to labour the point, one of the reasons for RfA is to weed out those candidates whio perhaps haven't realised, and haven't mastered, the not exactly very hard skill of writing unambiguously, for a global audience.
I believe opposition is important – it can show a number of perspectives which could become a departure for improvement.
And yet here you are, whining about your experience of a process where, in reality, you got a landslide of support and virtually no opposition? Rather than focusing on improving, your first instinct was to post your complaints.
However, knowing that you can potentially be criticized for every mistake you’ve made is another challenge to take.
Hmmm. Well, maybe, just, well, like, MAN UP?

Worth noting that she is wise to use the word potential there, because in reality, although she had to deal with 20 questions, literally, only a tiny number of them were to do with actual incidents that people had found. The vast majority were of a generalist nature, aimed only at getting her philosophy on a particular issue.
Is has been very emotional for me and there was a point I was about to withdraw and I know I wasn’t the only one having those thoughts. Luckily, I had people who supported me.
Jesus Christ. You honestly wouldn't believe this person was talking about a question and answer session on a website for a rather unimportant internal role. She sounds ike she's talking about having experienced a serious trauma.
Right now, when the RfA is over, everything doesn’t look that bad, but that’s my exact point. I am grateful to be a part of this community. My little wish would be to make RfA process less stressful as many people just might not have the emotional resilience and access to emotional support to deal with it.
No no no. I think your point was to try and argue that even though the issues were all yours, the community still needs to make adjustments, so that exceedingly fragile people like yourself can cope.
Kindest regards, Less Unless (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
:roll:

I mean, come on. There's trying to make the process feel a little less like a rectal exam and a little more reflective of the pissant nature of the nominal reward for passing, and then there's just pandering to entirely unsuitable candidates.

I have serious doubts this person would have passed, let alone sailed through, if the necessary changes were made to RfA such that it might be possible to actually determine the actual strength of character and emotional fragility of the candidate.

For it cannot be in any doubt, based on that outpouring, that this person is not going to be much use to the Wikipedia community, other than perhaps as, ironically, a little heard and little noticed Secretary type. The role of Admin having originally seen as mere janitorial work, and the fact that quickly proved to be a lie, and Adminship is more correctly seen as a very powerful status that you can hold indefinitely, being the reason RfA became such a trial.

And as well know, even those Admins who think all they are doing is uncontroversial paperwork, are at some point or another, going to find themselves in a situation where being able to handle stress, as well as do the basics like communicate effectively, will be what prevents them becoming just another Kudpung.

If Wikipedia governance worked, this statement could be used as evidence to nullify and perhaps re-run her application, so she can hopefully be asked some serious questions about why it is she apparently gets so worked up over relatively trivial matters.

Because it honestly has to ba asked now, has this woman already got a seriously unhealthy relationship with Wikipedia? In that in all honesty, complete disengagement, rather than more responsibility, might be the wisest and healthiest thing for her to do.

Too late for them now. Last time I saw this level of unreality, this level of imbalance, it was from Lourdes, and I think everyone agrees it was a mistake to promote her.

Not to be sexist, but if it's truly a defining trait of women to be more emotional and less resilient to stress, to the point they can genuinely get upset over a nothing burger like RfA, both in terms of what actually happened and what it was all about, the way this woman has, then shit, maybe it's just a truism, Wikipedia is just not for girls.

I am not totally down with that as my conclusion, because I am blessed to know many capable women who would be disgusted to be associated with such fragile creatures. And yet neither are they power crazed psycho ogres like Bishonen or rude incompetent loner activist freaks like Jess Wade (admittedly not a Admin, but in her warped mind, she genuinely thinks the only reason she isn't, is because the men wouldn't let her be one).

With the exception of the one old bat down the street, and that's why she's been ostracized to planet go fuck yourself. Unfortunately for Wikipedians, they have no such luxury. They have to live with being subjects of Queen Bishonen, and they have to live with being prevented from asking Jess Wade why she is such a monumental screwup, someone still incapable of even a basic thing like proper sourcing, in case she starts crying or some shit.

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: Are women just temperamentally unsuited to Wikipedia?

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:02 pm

I mean, come on. There's trying to make the process feel a little less like a rectal exam and a little more reflective of the pissant nature of the nominal reward for passing, and then there's just pandering to entirely unsuitable candidates.

I have serious doubts this person would have passed, let alone sailed through, if the necessary changes were made to RfA such that it might be possible to actually determine the actual strength of character and emotional fragility of the candidate.
Please let me comment on this, as someone who has looked at HUNDREDS of RFAs.

The RFA "process" is a joke. It has always been a joke. Going right back to the first one in 2003. Note that it was conducted on the mailing list in the beginning, and NOT on Wikipedia itself. If the candidate looked "okay" according to the few admins who cared, and Jimbo was cool with it, they were IN. Before that, the only way to get the "bit" was to aggressively suck up to Wales directly, and either be a loudly stupid Wikipedia cheerleader, make libertarian-like noises to balm his neurotic Ayn Rand obsession, or be an attractive female he could maybe schtup. There were always very few of the latter category--Wikipedia is a hardcore basement nerd ghetto and hardcore nerditry is mostly for males. They produce the single-minded ADHD aggression more easily than women.

Candidates are no problem. The list is always enormous. I suspect said list is probably about 20-30% female at best; ten years ago it was more like 10%. This situation is another public joke. Thanks to considerable past media discussion of Wikipedia's "male bias", they have to play this insipid publicity game to hide the simple fact that Wikipedia remains a mean little boy's club.

What you see on an RFA page is nothing but a Stalinist show trial and a show vote. Most of the questioning, abuse, backstabbing and emotional manipulation occurs in private emails and private IRC channels. More recently, some is conducted on private Discord or Slack channels. The result remains the same. Stalinist states are deeply resistant to change and Wikipedia is no different.

I have no doubt that Less Unless was subjected to weeks of shrieking childish abuse from male administrators prior to the RFA. No wonder she's starting to crack. It has been a routine process since 2005, when Wikipedia really started to become popular. The WMF has officially stated Wikipedia must be "inclusive" and "gender neutral", and pushes to maintain a false public image of this sort; private communications are a very different matter. The vast bulk of administrative "work" (hah) is conducted off Wikipedia, in secret, where even WMF employees are usually not privy to it.
And as well know, even those Admins who think all they are doing is uncontroversial paperwork, are at some point or another, going to find themselves in a situation where being able to handle stress, as well as do the basics like communicate effectively, will be what prevents them becoming just another Kudpung.
Ha ha ha. We should abuse Kudpung more often. Smallbones also. Both of THEM are very old men with massive chips on their shoulders. If Wikipedia were actually "inclusive" those crusty fusties would be gone. But noooo.
And yet neither are they power crazed psycho ogres like Bishonen
Bishonen was written about at some length for the book wiki. Ask some pissed off Gamergaters about Andrea J. Faulds. Yes kiddies: Bishonen is believed to be yet another M-to-F transgender insider. You expected something else? How silly of you.
Andrea-Faulds-Bishonen.jpg
Andrea-Faulds-Bishonen.jpg (9.64 KiB) Viewed 1154 times

Post Reply