Sarah Jeong racism allegations

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:25 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:01 am
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:50 am
Another mistaken notion you might like to correct is that it's a good idea to refer to people who sign their posts Renée as "Englishman".
Gosh, I didn't realize that this is your real name! How about this: I don't believe you.
Where did I say that it was my real name? No, that's right, I didn't. It is how I sign my posts. As to whether you can believe something I never said, I'll use that as a question the next time I set a philosophy exam.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:31 am

I don't believe this either:
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:50 am
Yes, I know, having published dozens of academic papers, refereed dozens more (not quite the same as fact-checking), and been on the editorial board and the board of trustees of academic journals, with, I believe, good reputations. One of the things I noticed from my experiences was that academic journals and newspapers are different things, with different goals and different means of achieving those goals.
That just sounds wrong. Wtf is a board of trustees of a journal? I just checked the most prestigious journals in my field and they don't have these. You must mean Wikipediocracy.

Btw, dozens is a lot. Hey kids, when you're making up your D&D character, don't make him a 24th level magic user when 8th level is effective and a lot more believable.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:41 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:31 am
I don't believe this either:
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:50 am
Yes, I know, having published dozens of academic papers, refereed dozens more (not quite the same as fact-checking), and been on the editorial board and the board of trustees of academic journals, with, I believe, good reputations. One of the things I noticed from my experiences was that academic journals and newspapers are different things, with different goals and different means of achieving those goals.
That just sounds wrong,. Wtf is a board of trustees of a journal? You must mean Wikipediocracy.

Btw, dozens is a lot. Hey kids, when you're making up your D&D character, don't make him a 24th level magic user when 8th level is effective and a lot more believable.
Since you ask, some academic journals are published by learned societies, which in the UK are typically constituted as charitable trusts under a board of trustees, analogous to the board of directors of a company. The editorial board supervise the content of the journal, and the board of trustees supervise the business and finances -- they are different roles and I have held both in my time. If you did not know this about academic publishing, then perhaps you should be less confident in making sweeping assertions about how it works. If you did, then of course you were simply being obstructive.

"Dozens" is a lot. It's what you would be expected to produce as a British academic, which I was.

Whether you believe me or not is your problem not mine, and I'm certainly not going to identify myself in order to persuade you of my credentials. What I have been doing to provide ample opportunity for you to demonstrate that you are pontificating on a subject about which you know really rather little, and where your confident and mistaken pronouncements are easily refuted by someone with more knowledge of the topics about which you are so ignorant. Again.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:03 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:41 am
Since you ask, some academic journals are published by learned societies, which in the UK are typically constituted as charitable trusts under a board of trustees, analogous to the board of directors of a company. The editorial board supervise the content of the journal, and the board of trustees supervise the business and finances -- they are different roles and I have held both in my time.
You did not say that you were a trustee of a learned society which publishes a journal. You said that you'd served as a trustee of several academic journals. This is not merely a technical distinction.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:50 am
It's what you would be expected to produce as a British academic, which I was.
In what field?

In case you're curious, my grounds for skepticism include:

1) Your previous use of the name of a wIzard in a Jack Vance novel. Hence my reference to D&D magic users, as this novel was the basis of their (miserable excuse for) a magic system. This is the choice of a fantasist.
2) Your current use of "Reneé Bagslint" and request above to refer to you as female, behavior which is more usually associated with a 20-something wikiaddct programmer than a 60-something retired academic. Perhaps this helps explain your behavior in the "social justice warrior" thread?
3) Your very un-academic assertion in this thread that authors don't matter in determination of reliability, only editors and publishers, and failure to see lack of attribution as a problem. I struggle to reconcile this with someone who has built bibliographies, especially given the vast number of sources one needs in original research which were never published at all. What do you do with a manuscript, toss it out while a totally unattributed piece in a newspaper is okay? It sounds like you got this from Wikipedia, which you quoted nearly verbatim.
4) You kind of sound like FT2's "Paul Sinclair" above; a weird combination of boasting and evasion.

Include but are not limited to.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:42 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:03 am
In case you're curious, my grounds for skepticism include:
[...]
3) Your very un-academic assertion in this thread that authors don't matter in determination of reliability, only editors and publishers, and failure to see lack of attribution as a problem. I struggle to reconcile this with someone who has built bibliographies, especially given the vast number of sources one needs in original research which were never published at all. What do you do with a manuscript, toss it out while a totally unattributed piece in a newspaper is okay? It sounds like you got this from Wikipedia, which you quoted nearly verbatim.
I don't know which thread you're referring to here, but it isn't one I wrote anything in. In this thread I commented that as a matter of fact British newspapers tend not to assign bylines to every story, and that their reputation for reliability and accuracy tends to go with their name and with the personal reputation of the editor, something which you were unaware of. You seem to think that only a newspaper with universal attribution can possibly be reliable: I don't see why you would think that. I never said anything remotely resembling "authors don't matter in determination of reliability". I also explicitly said that academic publishing and newspaper publishing are different things, while you seem to assume that they both work the same way. Your claiming that I said the complete opposite of what anyone can see for themselves in this thread does nothing for your credibility. In fact, since you have not worried about repeatedly saying that you do not believe statements that I have made about myself, I will allow myself to be more direct than I usually am. The paragraph I quote here makes false assertions about what I wrote: they are visibly false, and you must know that they are false. In short, you are a liar.

I think there's an important lesson here. You made a comment which happened to be wrong, because you happened not to know something about the difference between British and the American media practices. I corrected that, because it so happens that, being British and reading British newspapers, I knew something that you did not. You had a choice here. You could have said something like "Gosh, I didn't know that, thanks" and we could have discussed the topic you wanted to discuss, which was something about the BBC not deserving the reputation it has for accuracy and reliability. But, no, you decided, consciously or unconsciously, that it was intolerable that you could be wrong on the subject, and so you have spent a couple of days trying to refute everything I say tht you are unhappy to hear, whether or not it is true and supported by evidence, apparently so disturbed by being contradicted that you are unable to accurately recall or say what it is that so upsets you, and you are now reduced to simply calling me a liar and a fantasist, and writing direct lies about me.

Well, let's get back to your original complaint, which was (in case you had forgotten)
It's funny how BBC is considered to be a "gold standard" source, even though they fail the most basic test of attributing their articles to an author. Some of them are picked up from wires, and they don't indicate that either. I've noticed other shenanigans there, such as accompanying articles about places with photogaphs of different places and the like.
We have dealt with the byline issue ad nauseam -- believe it if you want, but you're in a small, very small, minority. I challenged you for evidence about the wire stories, and you merely repeated your assertion (weakening it by placing it in the past not the present) without bringing forward any actual examples. Finally, do you have examples of "other shenanigans" such as incorrect illustrations? Five or so would do. Or you could fail again to produce ay actual evidence, leaving the rest of us to decide that you have decided a priori that you don't like the BBC, and are simply saying things about it that without any actual connection the true grounds of your dislike, or, indeed, reality.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:45 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:42 am
I don't know … [Wall of Distraction] … reality.
It should be easier to answer this than to write yet another such screed:
Proabivouac wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:03 am
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:50 am
It's what you would be expected to produce as a British academic, which I was.
In what field?

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:03 pm

I see no reason to tell you, as I am not keen to expose my personal details on this forum. If I said "Anglo-Saxon phonetics", say, or "mouse-brain anatomy" or "the aetiology of paranoid schizophrenia among internet users" would it help you to believe what I say about UK media culture or the fnancial arrangements of UK academic journals -- I don't think so, somehow. I have said what I need to say on this issue, which, as I remind you, is your insistence that the BBC is over-rated as a reliable source. Perhaps you'd care to support your assertions, about your chosen topic, by saying something about your evidence for your assertion or your reasons for the rest of us to believe what you say about your assertions on your chosen topic.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:12 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:03 pm
I see no reason to tell you, as I am not keen to expose my personal details on this forum.
You claimed and appealed to a lifetime of scholarly practice and expertise and so I asked – and ask again – in what field?

I didn't ask about "personal details." Unless you consider allegedly being female a "detail," but calling yourself "Renée" and asking to be addressed as such would not count as keeping it a secret.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:17 pm

You asked, and I refused, am refusing, and will continue to refuse to tell you. Why should I answer your questions about my personal life? You already wrote that you ddn't believe me, so there's clearly no point in my writing something else that you won't believe. You're repeating these questions, which have nothing to do with anything, in order to divert attention from your abject failure to support your own assertions and to somehow make my refusal to answer your persistently irrelevant questions seem to be somehow some kind of support for those unsupported assertions. Of course I could lie to you, but that's something I've avoided doing so far, since unlike some people, I have an aversion to it.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:28 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:17 pm
You asked, and I refused, am refusing, and will continue to refuse to tell you. Why should I answer your questions about my personal life?
Then why did you brag about the dozens of papers you've published, dozens more that you've refereed and your various positions as a trustee of academic journals, later amended to learned societies? P.s. the term "personal life" is usually meant in opposition to professional life, not as a synonym of it.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:17 pm
Of course I could lie to you, but that's something I've avoided doing so far, since unlike some people, I have an aversion to it.
Earlier in this thread, you objected to being called an Englishman since you sign your posts as "Renée" i.e. are a woman. How was that not a lie?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest