BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Proabivouac
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Proabivouac » Wed May 16, 2018 9:12 pm

She was how old when she was elected? And her background, to the extent that she can be said to have one, is in computer programming which is totally irrelevant to the creation of a scholarly reference work. What can you expect? The saddest thing is that for all the talk of Wikipedia needing more women, she in particular was chosen for the same reason the WIkimedia Foundation selected her, because her pix were appealing to male Wikipedians. Rather than choose an older more accomplished woman, say a professor of Russian literature or the like, they go straight for the fapbait. Newsflash: women are often judged by their looks, and young attractive women receive a disproportionate amount of unearned and sometimes (not here!) unwanted antention. The only change here is that they are put in charge of encyclopedias. That they use this attention to soapbox about feminism is just the irony cherry atop the same old sundae.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Auggie » Wed May 16, 2018 10:43 pm

ok well I have no problem with anyone 18 and over becoming an arbitrator. She's in her mid 20s now, right? She has graduated college.

Her pics are all normal. Nothing hypersexualized. Certainly not "fapbait".

I guess I can see your point she might have received a bit of a bump from the desperate loser crowd, but so what? Life is never 100% fair. Not taking her seriously because of that would be quite an injustice.

Proabivouac
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Proabivouac » Thu May 17, 2018 2:40 am

Auggie wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:43 pm
ok well I have no problem with anyone 18 and over becoming an arbitrator.
That's nuts. Ir's the closest thing they have to an editorial board and it should be composed accordingly. Or rather, would be, were this project of theirs halfway sane.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu May 17, 2018 3:38 am

Auggie wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:42 pm
Incompetent for ArbCom? How can there be such a thing?

ArbCom is a kangaroo court full of dummies lording over other dummies. Super tedious and stupid. A huge demotivator and drain on the project.

Do you have any examples of her incompetence?
When she first ran she argued Phil Sandifer posting Cla68's employment information on his blog shouldn't have been handled through an ArbCom motion, but in a full case. This, mind you, was right after the conclusion of the dramafest that was the Manning naming case and was, in fact, a direct consequence of it. She basically suggested ArbCom should have a whole other big public case to focus on this one event related to that case right after they got done with that one for a matter where there were no real facts in dispute. After she became an arbitrator she had that business in the GamerGate case where she publicly recused (her recusal is still on the main case page) and then quietly unrecused in time for the decision phase. Next year she was a party in an arbitration case and given a non-admonishment for misconduct. Plenty of reasons to be hard on other ArbCom members, but only a select few have managed to get themselves named a party to an ArbCom case while serving on ArbCom and been reprimanded for their conduct in said case.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Renée Bagslint » Thu May 17, 2018 6:36 am

sashi wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:23 am
Has the cat got your tongue, Renée? I guess I don't see the point reading there, then writing here to criticize people for not writing there. Have you been blocked at WPO?

I appreciated your résumé of the criticism I've made over there concerning rights to privacy and copyright. (It was very concise and effective.)
And I don't see the point of posting at a site where the moderators explicitly avow their intention of deleting opinions they disagree with; where opinions which are radically critical of Wikipedia, Wikioedians and the Foundation are unwelcome; and where the only discussions are a handful of Wikipedians discussing minor aspects of their system.

Thank you for those kind words but it seems that the post you refer to appeared on another site under another name, so it would be improper for me to take the credit for them here.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Auggie » Thu May 17, 2018 1:23 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 6:36 am
And I don't see the point of posting at a site where the moderators explicitly avow their intention of deleting opinions they disagree with; where opinions which are radically critical of Wikipedia, Wikioedians and the Foundation are unwelcome; and where the only discussions are a handful of Wikipedians discussing minor aspects of their system.
You mean Wikipediocracy?

Yes I too have given up on having any meaningful conversations there. Get more than three posts in, and one of the regulars will complain you violated some unwritten forum rule. Then thread lock or your posts are disappeared.
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 3:38 am
When she first ran she argued Phil Sandifer posting Cla68's employment information on his blog shouldn't have been handled through an ArbCom motion, but in a full case. This, mind you, was right after the conclusion of the dramafest that was the Manning naming case and was, in fact, a direct consequence of it. She basically suggested ArbCom should have a whole other big public case to focus on this one event related to that case right after they got done with that one for a matter where there were no real facts in dispute. After she became an arbitrator she had that business in the GamerGate case where she publicly recused (her recusal is still on the main case page) and then quietly unrecused in time for the decision phase. Next year she was a party in an arbitration case and given a non-admonishment for misconduct. Plenty of reasons to be hard on other ArbCom members, but only a select few have managed to get themselves named a party to an ArbCom case while serving on ArbCom and been reprimanded for their conduct in said case.
Seems like some pretty standard baseline arbitrator incompetence and hypocricy. She fits right in! :mrgreen:
Proabivouac wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:40 am
That's nuts. Ir's the closest thing they have to an editorial board and it should be composed accordingly. Or rather, would be, were this project of theirs halfway sane.
As long as we allow 18 year olds to fight in wars and drive tanks and stuff, I'm ok with them running a mock lawyer club on a dumb website dominated by petty garbage people. ymmv.

Proabivouac
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Proabivouac » Thu May 17, 2018 4:11 pm

Auggie wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 1:23 pm
As long as we allow 18 year olds to fight in wars and drive tanks and stuff, I'm ok with them running a mock lawyer club on a dumb website dominated by petty garbage people. ymmv.
They are not usually allowed to direct those wars. An 18 year old can go to school, but is not usually teaching the classes. For some, I guess this is the fantasy land in which they do. Unfortunately, it has major consequences to others, not only those libeled in their proceedings, which are personal attack solicitation machines by design, but subjects and especially readers who are covered by or relying upon their website. You might say that they are irrelevant in the sense that they do nothing to address the site's problems and are too lazy to make them all that much worse, but they don't feel irrelevant when they are gleefully trashing your name and reputation. It's been a long time since they've done anything to me other than keep me banned, and they're usually more reluctant to provoke people than they used to be, but they haven't quite quit. It was only a few years ago that they were putting scholars like James Cantor, J. Michael Bailey and others on trial for being insufficiently pro-trans* and mounting purges against various contributors, including some using their real names, for allegedly "discriminatory speech."

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Auggie » Thu May 17, 2018 5:37 pm

Let's agree to disagree about 18 year olds but as far as Molly White is concerned, that question is moot. As a college graduate in her 20s, she is more qualified than both Gates and Zuckerberg were when they started their companies.

I also agree ArbCom is horrible, inconsistent, and stupid. There was a time way back when I was having content disputes and I thought about taking the case to ArbCom. So glad I didn't. It is a flawed organization with no clear purpose and incompetent, mean-spirited members. It lends a veneer of due process and respectability to what is essentially a thunderdome situation. Just like well-meaning contributors who generate content in spite of knowing how it will be misused, the few good people on ArbCom are really just monstrous enablers.

Proabivouac
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Proabivouac » Thu May 17, 2018 6:07 pm

Auggie wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 5:37 pm
It lends a veneer of due process and respectability to what is essentially a thunderdome situation.
They unbanned an antisemitic pseud specifically to attack me during the case, then rebanned him at the end. To be fair to the pseud, he did this mainly because they told him that attacking me was the only way for him to avoid being banned again. I was using my real name which hardly any of them were. They said it was my fault for have been foolish enough to use it, although when I joined Wikipedia the username guideline said that this was the best name to use. Needless to say, it doesn't recommend that now. They even blocked me for trying to add a warning to the guideline, as if their goal were to trick people into joining so that they would have someone to attack.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Auggie » Thu May 17, 2018 6:52 pm

haha well if it makes you feel any better, I never heard of this whole thing and have no clue what your real name is.

I'm not at all surprised that they would pull shenanigans like unblocking a disruptive user for the sole purpose of "testifying" in their kangaroo court. That sounds about right.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests