[GenderDesk] Wikimedia opposes online safety

[ericbarbour]

There were several replies he made where he begged even more. They're no longer showing up for some reason, but I was smart enough to save them on archive.is: https://archive.is/fol9s

Thanks---saving. Yeah his influence is clearly at an all-time low. Lots of people saw this, yet very few reposted it or responded. Having a few Tories on his side isn't having the desired result--given that he's spent the past 11+ years sucking up to Labourites.

And even married one. (Her article was custom-written for her in 2013 by former Jimbo-suckup Fred Bauder. Almost certainly at Jimbo's direction.) Bauder was pushed out, something which would have been unthinkable in the early 2000s, he being fully protected by Lord Wales the Questionable and the lord's "magick powerz". They appear to be fading.

[rubricatedseedpod]

Labourite

The couple met in Monaco

heh

[Bbb23sucks]

Labourite

The couple met in Monaco

heh

https://skwawkbox.org/2023/07/20/paedop ... se-images/

[Dr Mario]

Jimbo's whining about it on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/ ... 8700754945

Ah ha ha ha ha. He "threatened" Parliament with an unspecified "revenge move". As if he could get the Wiki-Bungs to do anything.

Seriously: I'd like to see the "Community" vote to shut Wikipedia down for a day to protest this bill. And fail, so they have to meekly bring WP back online and submit to the bloody Crown and install some kind of are-you-over-18 opening page or whatever.

He's probably going to give them a global block on Wikipedia.

[journo]

Genderdesk has now reported on many things directly inspired by posts of mine in various places.

And yet, they don't add anything.

I can be their volunteer writer but I don't understand the point of their blog.

[rubricatedseedpod]

It's far too distracted by other topics to be a good posterboard for criticism, a problem the related WS blog here also has.

[Bbb23sucks]

It's far too distracted by other topics to be a good posterboard for criticism, a problem the related WS blog here also has.

Well, it isn't primarily meant for Wikipedia criticism to my knowledge. My impression is that it is primarily a political opinion blog that mainly expresses western liberal feminist ideas (which also include support for western imperialism and so-called "TERFism").

[ericbarbour]

The Genderdesk blog is not intended for any REAL purpose and carries no real information. It is someone's ongoing pathetic attempt to suck up to Wikipedia insiders.

And I would not be surprised if it is operated by multiple anonymous people. Wikipedia's bizarre governance encourages sockpuppetry, "joe-jobbing", misdirection, personal attacks, backstabbery, occasional legal threats, you name it. All the things they HATE when used against them. And which they have "rules" against using on Wikipedia itself. That blog is IMO just another propagandistic "joe job" operation, pretending to be a "neutral source". Because it's not on a WMF server, they can lie and spin all they want. Just the fact that the operator(s) is/are totally anonymous should be a red flag.

[rubricatedseedpod]

That blog is IMO just another propagandistic "joe job" operation, pretending to be a "neutral source". Because it's not on a WMF server, they can lie and spin all they want. Just the fact that the operator(s) is/are totally anonymous should be a red flag.

So, even the TERF element might be a LARP? Could this blog even be being run by someone like Fæ? Lol.

[ericbarbour]

There have been few mentions of the Online Safety Bill in the past couple of weeks--it is being "modified" for the protection of "special little creatures" like Wikipedia, apparently.
https://www.regulate.tech/online-safety ... -july-2023
You might want to watch regulate.tech--it's one of the few blog/news sites covering the OSB in depth.

Note that Genderdesk mentioned this study about the gender bias of BLPs
https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2023/0 ... -and-blps/
https://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2023 ... dia-redux/
This is something I discovered MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO. And it hasn't improved very much since 2012. In spite of various "Wiki-Women edit-a-thons" and so forth, there is very little internal political will to fix this. Wikipedia continues to be run by MALE basement nerds.

Also note that recent Genderdesk posts have rarely drawn any comments. Is interest in this propaganda-prone blog fading out?