Has Wikipedia gone woke? (Chris Troutman blocked for sexis
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:44 pm
This was perhaps one of the reasons I got banned from Wikipediocracy.
Chris Troutman was recently blocked 1 week for sexism.
There are two good writeups, my timeline here (collapsed section), and Tim's broader summary here.
To me, it's not even controversial to say Molly has ridden roughshod over her colleagues, policy and all known Wikipedia precedent. She has used emotion and triggering, and her own status and gender, to get what she wanted. A statement block. A virtue signal visible from space. A flex to crush all flexes.
It is entirely possible for both of these things to be true....
1. Chris said something sexist.
2. Molly reacted like a fully paid up member of the Woke Police, not a long serving very knowledgeable Wikipedia Administrator and former Arbitrator.
And it worked. There's been zero dissent. Zero. The fear is palpable. As you would expect if Wikipedia has quietly been captured by the Wokerati.
She cannot be defended. Not by anyone who knows a thing about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And I have defended her in the past, when she was being an actual feminist, not an agent of woke.
Nobody who knows anything about Wikipedia can be blind to what it means to be hit with a week long block for sexism. Chris can now be canceled very easily. One tiny mistep, and he's gone. So it matters if that block was an act of sheer and total abuse of power by someone who at that very moment had a very specific reason from wanting to shut Chris up (protect Maher) in addition to the desire to react to sexism.
And indefinite block would have been challenged, and this would have all come out. What she did. The circumstances. The sheer audacity of it.
Things very much not normal. Wikipedia blocks are not punishments or a message to the wider community, much less the media. This has been a principle since forever, as Molly knows fine well. She has gone fully off the reservation, and nobody is willing to stop her.
This simple observation also seems to have offended Zoloft's politics. No surprise, given he admits to being left of Maher, from whom Molly no doubt derives the confidence to do such a thing.
On Wikipediocracy, it's apparently very controversial to point out what should be some really rather obvious things to experienced Wikipedia critics who date from earlier times, when certain men with certain views really did get away with murder on Wikipedia. Would the current generation of Wikipedia editors even a have a clue why this was such a terrible abuse of power by Molly? Probably not.
And who is going to tell them? Not Zoloft.
Chris Troutman was recently blocked 1 week for sexism.
There are two good writeups, my timeline here (collapsed section), and Tim's broader summary here.
To me, it's not even controversial to say Molly has ridden roughshod over her colleagues, policy and all known Wikipedia precedent. She has used emotion and triggering, and her own status and gender, to get what she wanted. A statement block. A virtue signal visible from space. A flex to crush all flexes.
It is entirely possible for both of these things to be true....
1. Chris said something sexist.
2. Molly reacted like a fully paid up member of the Woke Police, not a long serving very knowledgeable Wikipedia Administrator and former Arbitrator.
And it worked. There's been zero dissent. Zero. The fear is palpable. As you would expect if Wikipedia has quietly been captured by the Wokerati.
She cannot be defended. Not by anyone who knows a thing about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And I have defended her in the past, when she was being an actual feminist, not an agent of woke.
Nobody who knows anything about Wikipedia can be blind to what it means to be hit with a week long block for sexism. Chris can now be canceled very easily. One tiny mistep, and he's gone. So it matters if that block was an act of sheer and total abuse of power by someone who at that very moment had a very specific reason from wanting to shut Chris up (protect Maher) in addition to the desire to react to sexism.
And indefinite block would have been challenged, and this would have all come out. What she did. The circumstances. The sheer audacity of it.
Things very much not normal. Wikipedia blocks are not punishments or a message to the wider community, much less the media. This has been a principle since forever, as Molly knows fine well. She has gone fully off the reservation, and nobody is willing to stop her.
This simple observation also seems to have offended Zoloft's politics. No surprise, given he admits to being left of Maher, from whom Molly no doubt derives the confidence to do such a thing.
On Wikipediocracy, it's apparently very controversial to point out what should be some really rather obvious things to experienced Wikipedia critics who date from earlier times, when certain men with certain views really did get away with murder on Wikipedia. Would the current generation of Wikipedia editors even a have a clue why this was such a terrible abuse of power by Molly? Probably not.
And who is going to tell them? Not Zoloft.