https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request ... lenspiegel
How's this for fucked up? Having apparently never noticed for years that one of the primary editors of the Ethiopian Wikipedia, someone who joined in 2005 and reached the level of Administrator and Bureaucrat (easy when your community numbers about ten apparently), was a raging homophobe, the precious Wikipedians are now gathering at their village square to stone the devil and signal their virtues with as much enthusiasm as they can muster. Quote the show. Nearly brings a tear to your eye.
They're trying their hardest to pretend the Ethiopian cultural and legal attitude to homosexuality, which evidently had much to do with the situation getting this bad, has nothing to do with it. They want us all to believe the assorted Wikipedia's are all one big happy family, their communities and thus content being guided only by the world renowned American values of tolerance and human rights, and that when it comes to issues of law, only US law matters. They are up in arms at the prospect that advanced rights holders on any Wikipedia, could be openly intolerant.
It is just so much horseshit.
To take English Wikipedia as the obvious example, I have previously highlighted the fact that many of the longest serving Wikipedians there, including Administrators, are quite openly homophobic......
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=18&t=582
Apparently, for the people who manage English Wikipedia in the form of choosing who to ban, most of whom can be seen in the above debate clutching their pearls, it is only really stuff like racism and paedophilia that falls into the area where you can be banned simply for being open about your beliefs, rather than assuming good faith and waiting to see if you do anything to advance them, be that either article edits or blocking users.
It took them some time, but these days US law is indeed very clear on the issue of homosexuality. It is no business of the government's what your sexuality is, and where it affects the government's interaction with you, you are entitled to equal protection. Most notably, gay marriage is legal, and to say otherwise, is unconstitutional.
You might be surprised to learn then, that one of the shriekers in that page, the very powerful Wikipedia Administrator Guy Chapman (User:JzG), has previously openly stated his view that gay marriage is something over which reasonable people can disagree. He believes anyone who doesn't accept the truth of that statement, be they pro or anti, is not competent to edit Wikipedia. In other words, they can be banned. Full details here.....
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 6437#p6437
The Wikipedians aren't pro-LGBT or remotely interested in stamping out discrimination in all its forms. They are anti anyone who doesn't share their cultural values, which for all their well.known and very unrepresentative skews to the US coastal world view, still features much leeway for the softer forms of discrimination.
As any LGBT person living in the US will tell, you, sure, the law says they're equal, but really, due to the broad spectrum of US culture, half of which is purposely excluded from Wikipedia because of people like Chapman, you still better watch where you go, you better watch what you say, lest you encounter an American (or in Chapman's case, a Brit), that thinks the US constitutional position on homosexuality is still debatable.
If US law is not the standard by which they measure themselves, if reasonable people can disagree, then why would you be banned for saying homosexuality should be illegal, but embraced if you think they shouldn't be allowed to get married? There is no interpretation of the First Amendment that allows one but not the other.
The Ethiopian user has already had their abilities to block others removed, he has been busted back down to ordinary editor, so be in no doubt, he is being pelted with rocks only for his ongoing beliefs and past acts, not his ability to discriminate going forward (not any future article edits to push his POV).
The fact of the matter is, if the WMF is serious about not discriminating against homosexuals, it is high time they started banning the soft bigots merely for holding unacceptable beliefs, as well as the hard ones. No self-respecting homosexual wanders around Wikipedia thinking, well, I'm ever so pleased the person who thinks my right to get married is debatable, was ever so mad at the person who thinks I am the same as a paedophile. They are my friend and ally. They are woke.
Guy Chapman is a homophobe. Graeme Bartlett is a homophobe. Both are long standing Wikipedia Administrators. That is never going to change, whatever bullshit you will see being said in the above link about discrimination and Wikipedia values. If their unfettered ability to question the legitimacy of gay marriage isn't a Wikipedia value, then what is?
There are thousands of LGBT Wikipedians, of course, and the site is largely pro. They clearly take the view that it is better to be part of Wikipedia, using it the way many other minorities have and continue to do, namely as a platform for advocacy, and to simply hold your nose when around the likes Chapman, than it is to leave in protest. Doesn't make it right.
Homophobic Wikipedians
-
Dysklyver
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Re: Homophobic Wikipedians
It seems at least three other Wikipedias are also run by raging homophobes, and the affects vary from random bans of gay people, to purging of LGBT topics.
And that's only what has been found so far.
And that's only what has been found so far.
Re: Homophobic Wikipedians
I wonder how many of the chuckleheads in that stoning session even realise that Ethiopian Wikipedia is one of many Wikipedias that doesn't even have a local translation of the WMF Terms of Use.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/am
This whole incident has highlighted the colonial instincts of the Wikipediots. Quite funny, watching them flailing around with Google Translate, and the only person there able to correct their errors, is the homophobe!
Maybe they should shut any Wikipedia that doesn't have a local copy of the Terms and an identified editor who can be turned to when issues arise that need reliable translation between the local language and that of the Empire.
No. That would be too sensible. That is what a professional outfit would do. These fuckwits, they just send in the likes of Drmies to piss all over the backward locals. That idiot didn't even know 'sonny boy' has a non-racist usage in British English. And he blocked somone because of his misunderstanding. No sign yet of him ever being held to account either, not under local policy or the WMF's anti-bullying statutes. I wonder what he thinks of gay marriage. I doubt his Dutch roots means he has any real disagreement with Chapman.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/am
This whole incident has highlighted the colonial instincts of the Wikipediots. Quite funny, watching them flailing around with Google Translate, and the only person there able to correct their errors, is the homophobe!
Maybe they should shut any Wikipedia that doesn't have a local copy of the Terms and an identified editor who can be turned to when issues arise that need reliable translation between the local language and that of the Empire.
No. That would be too sensible. That is what a professional outfit would do. These fuckwits, they just send in the likes of Drmies to piss all over the backward locals. That idiot didn't even know 'sonny boy' has a non-racist usage in British English. And he blocked somone because of his misunderstanding. No sign yet of him ever being held to account either, not under local policy or the WMF's anti-bullying statutes. I wonder what he thinks of gay marriage. I doubt his Dutch roots means he has any real disagreement with Chapman.