All my Christmases have come at once!

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

All my Christmases have come at once!

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Jul 09, 2021 10:36 am

Oh Lordy, what a day to be a Wikipedia critic.

Read it and weep, Wikipediocracy. How many of these issues, all exposed in one single incident, have you morons consistently denied are even issues? All of them?

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

* It's an example of creepy woman hater Ritchie yet again going after the women. If he can't make them love him, he will make them fear him. Wade spurned his offer of a helping hand up the Wikipedia ladder of power, and then also ignored his ongoing praise. Now she must feel his wrath. Rub that wikipenis on her face Ritchie boy! What a bad breakup that must have been. Properly, literally, broke him. Stay strong Ritchie. Keep your end up!

* It's another example of Ritchie having absolutely no idea what makes a good Wikipedia Administrator. He suggested Wade run for Admin way back when, which she wisely ignored (only because in her mind, as she has already said, she would already be one, if it weren't for all the men!). And yet here she is, much later, in his esteemed opinion, allegedly creating biographies that fail BLP1E. Not a great look for someone whose sole expertise with Wikipedia, is creating biographies. Lots of biographies. I'm pretty sure her utter incompetence in her chosen field, would have been spotted at RfA, and deemed to be a sign she couldn't be trusted. I guess it could be said that in Wade's case, Ritchie was blinded by her celebrity and just wanted to be associated with success at this Wikipedia lark, at least as the ignorant media defines it, and maybe he didn't do the due diligence be would normally do. But also, yes, he really is that useless on a more general basis too.

* It's an example of Ritchie's hubris biting him in the ass, yet again. He not so long ago praised Wade for her rate of productivity, on her very own talk page. This was in response to me raising the "Jess Wade problem" on Wikipediocracy, which they of course, roundly rejected. Because they're not serious Wikipedia critics, quite the opposite in fact. Namely, why are the Wikipedia Admins doing nothing about the fact every single one of Wade's biographers breaks the fundamental and important rule that challenge worthy statements in a BLP must have a source? And it must be in the from of an inline citation, which must be directly at the end of the sentence it supports, at the time of publication. No ifs, no buts. Serious policy is serious. Administrators are supposed to counsel, advise, warn and ultimately block users who fail to abide by this policy, because to not follow it poses a fundamental risk to Wikipedia's ability to say that a Seigenthaler incident can never happen again. But for whatever reason, and we know why, media starlet Wade gets a free pass. And this Wade creation was of course, no exception, with no less than the university the subject graduated from, and a highly provocative quote by the subject about the Bullingdon Club, not having an inline source, at time of publication. Who could have predicted that? I did. It's called the Jess Wade Problem for a reason, you stupid bastards. She does it EVERY SINGLE TIME SHE HITS SUBMIT. All documented here, for as long a period as was necessary to prove she wasn't just having a bad week, that it is her chosen Modus Operadi. Shit editor is shit.

* It's an example of Wade's clique (Duncan being a close personal friend of Wade's) reorting to reflexive and uninformed accusations of sexism against anyone who would dare question the workings of Saint Wade as she goes about her saintly Wikipedia editing. The normal Wikipedia distaste for such things, is as usual, seemingly put aside for Wade and her enablers. Can't be asking her and her friends to abide by the basic behavioural codes, like don't cast aspersions on your fellow editors. They be busy people. Got shit to do. Insult away, my media darlings! Who cares if you're offended Ritchie? What you gonna do, complain to ArbCom? Lol. They already think you're the sort of scummy Fram like Admin who would try to make a woman feel uncomfortable if you were failing to get her to comply with your content wishes. Because you are. Own it.

* It's an example of how Wade has been as an editor all round. She just keeps grinding away, ignoring everyone and everything around her. She didn't even notice she had used a deprecated source, even though the computer warns you of such things in the history log. Naughty! As usual, someone else fixed her screw up. That being how Wade of course, defines collaboration on Wikipedia, by her own admission. A sort of master-slave type deal. That she is unresponsive even in situations where it would be expected that she would have a comment, such as when one of her articles is nominated for deletion. The discussion would certainly benefit from people knowing whether or not Wade has ever even heard of the BLP1E policy (it continues to amaze me what little she does know, but that is a natural byproduct of her choosing not to speak to anyone, or read any of the feedback she gets, because it's all of course, sexist nonsense), much less if she thought this person wasn't subject to it.

* It's an example of the sort of shite that passes for genuine grievance in Wade's sort of activism. There is only one persuasive element to Pender's cause, that there is still a disproportionate number of privately educated pupils at university. But her main complaint is entirely subjective, being about her feelings and her personal issues with self esteem. Nothing a good therapist, or a better choice of social circle, can't fix. None of which though, had anything remotely to do with "discrimination" in the very real sense. She is living proof that what her mother told her is true. All that matters is your grades. She succeeded. And she is wrong to suggest this is a new thing either, she is just the latest in several generations who had been first to go to university. It's normal here. Long standing government policy, for good or ill. It's a complete myth that the levers of power are in the hands of private schools. A fact that is of course unpalatable to The Guardian, and is therefore duly reflected in their biased coverage of UK society (as is their right as an opinionated newspaper), and is therefore duly presented as the unbiased view in Wikipedia. The Daily Mail, for example, certainly wouldn't forget that we had a women prime minister, a grocer's daughter no less, nearly half a century ago.

This is Wikipedia. Every flaw feeds into every other flaw, boosting and reinforcing. It's an entire ecosystem of interconnected flaws. Like an artificial neural net, but just one with a serious psychological problem. A problem that mirrors the brains of those that programmed it and trained it. It reflects their biases, and their general stupidity.

And would you have expected anything less?

You pay less than peanuts, you get workers that are one rung below trained monkeys. For it would be easy to train a monkey to spot an unsourced claim like "[subject] went to [place] university", and rip the editor's face off if they were found to be repeat and unapologetic offenders.

Wake up Wikipediocracy. There's being asleep at the wheel, and then there's just being sell out mother fuckers.

You can keep claiming some of you might like to see Wade and Ritchie just carrying on being incompetent or even evil, that this is somehow your idea of HTD in action. You're fooling nobody. I am HTD. Exposing these people for what they are, shouting it from the rooftops, is HTD. Proving that the media isn't paying attention even when you shout about these things, is HTD. Proving that the Wikipedia community want to do NOTHING about these issues, even though they are real and obvious, is HTD.

Showing that Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia are two sides of the same corrupt coin, is HTD.

Anyways, Happy Christmas, to my less fortunate colleagues, for whom it is not, and indeed it rarely is, a feast day. Not fresh meat, anyway. No surprise to see you yet again being served only the meagre scraps of Vigilant's regurgitated bile ducts. Ryan who, in the what now? I kid!

Try not to keep pretending you care when men threaten women on the internet though, especially when they do so in a place they think the women can't see them doing it (or get off on the fact they can, but can't respond). You did quite happily let Ritchie do that on your forum, after all, and long after it was realised women have feelings and stuff. No takebacks, remember.

You gotta own that shit. For it is you. Eric Corbett lives! Hmmm. Nom nom. Good stuff! A bit hazardous to your morals though.

:lol:

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: All my Christmases have come at once!

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Jul 09, 2021 7:05 pm

Keep The subject is not a low profile figure; she actually seems to be a prominent public speaker. There's a clear claim to fame, continuing coverage and plenty of sources, passing WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Ask me about Andrew "Colonel Warden" Davidson sometime.

And what was that about Wikipedia administrators "not needing to editwar"? Because some of the little fuckers LOVE to editwar.
10:01, 7 July 2021‎ Ritchie333 talk contribs‎ 3,930 bytes +418‎ Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Pender. undo Tag: Twinkle
09:42, 7 July 2021‎ Duncan.Hull talk contribs‎ 3,512 bytes +3,490‎ Undid revision 1032418309 by Ritchie333 (talk) please discuss on the talk page before deleting undo Tags: Undo Removed redirect
09:14, 7 July 2021‎ Ritchie333 talk contribs‎ 22 bytes −3,490‎ WP:BLP1E undo Tags: New redirect Reverted

Post Reply