Now in Slate
, which is unsurprising as they have been running a series of articles that basically critique Wikipedia in depth, but are inherently biased because they only ever seem to speak to middle of the road Wikipedians or the WMF, and so there is always a presumption that if there's a problem, it can be fixed.
As such, it comes down hard on the objectors, makes them look like a right bunch of assholes. Exposes the bankruptcy of their position very well, particularly this.....
Wikipedians will say that their project is not an experiment in democracy or a form of government. But theories about the rule of law, due process, or the assumed constitutional monarchy of Jimmy Wales are often employed in debates. Terms like “project governance” are often just shorthand for wikipolitics, and political opinions vary.
The angry mob can shout down or even scare away unpopular or unpalatable opinions on WP:FRAMBAN, but they can't stop them finding their way into the press, especially if they stand out as rare voices of dissent. Jorm, Rob, the Twitterverse, WMDC all feature in the piece, as well of course as the obligatory press release from the WMF.
By contrast, despite the (really really bad) factoid that the angry mob has quickly spun up more words on this than a Game of Thrones novel, the article only has Jimmy Wales as a named person giving any kind of statement as to why they are mad. Other than that, it just refers to them as, well, the mob. Oh, and a "veteran Wikipedia editor", who presumably remained anonymous because he either doesn't exist, or is too ashamed to give his identity.
People will come away from that article thinking, right, so all these people are angry, but other than unbanning an asshole so he can be rebanned by the people who dropped the ball the first time around, what are their actual demands? It really does fuck the rebels in the ass on that score - they obviously know what they don't want, but on the thorny issue of how to handle harassment, their only big idea seems to be to persist with a system that is clearly not working for anyone except, well, them.
This is what I meant when I said the revolution will absolutely fail if it turns into a PR war. Maher already has the media. These are people who had a press release ready for The Guardian about how the Wikipedians banned the Daily Mail, before the Mail even knew it was banned. This is what they do. If you can't fix anything, just get good at convincing people you're trying, and if you could keep giving them money while they do so, that would be just super!
Anyway, FRAMBAN has in depth secondary coverage in two reliable sources now. You know what that means!
It is worth noting that despite both sources being not remotely favourable to the Separatists, what little Wikipedia coverage FRAMBAN has, is entirely biased to the angry mob's viewpoint.....
On 10 June 2019, the English Wikipedia administrator Fram was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) from editing the English Wikipedia for a period of 1 year. According to Joseph Bernstein of Buzzfeed News, this took place "without a trial", and WMF did not "disclose the complainer nor the complaint" to the community. Some in the editor community expressed anger at the WMF not providing specifics, as well as skepticism as to whether Fram deserved the ban. A second administrator unblocked Fram, later citing "overwhelming community support", but the WMF reblocked Fram. A third administrator then unblocked Fram. Three weeks after the ban of Fram, 21 English Wikipedia administrators had resigned.