BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:58 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:34 pm
I suppose it was only to be expected that Ms White would leave before having had time to address the more weighty questions she had apparently come here to discuss.
Sadly, one part I was most interested in was the ArbCom statement regarding the WMF's essay on exposing paid editors. I was hoping she could tell us exactly how involved she was in preparing that statement and getting it put out. GW made it seem at the time as if she was the driving force in the matter and typically when one is the first signatory on an ArbCom action it is because that is the person who proposed the action. Had her involvement been as significant as she suggested when it was put out, then the HubSpot edit-a-thon just a few months prior would be a much bigger deal and all those finer details we were fussing over would take on much greater importance.
Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:30 pm
Presumably if someone links DA's Breitbart articles the post will be likewise deleted and the poster blocked or banned.
Some efforts have been made to link to them, though they have been removed when posted. However, nothing was deleted and none of the users sanctioned. Editors have suggested my Breitbart pieces and more recently my Medium pieces are harassment. As yet, no one has tried to delete them in the administrative sense or have administrative action taken against those posting links to my stuff.

Proabivouac
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:15 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:58 am
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:34 pm
I suppose it was only to be expected that Ms White would leave before having had time to address the more weighty questions she had apparently come here to discuss.
Sadly, one part I was most interested in was the ArbCom statement regarding the WMF's essay on exposing paid editors. I was hoping she could tell us exactly how involved she was in preparing that statement and getting it put out. GW made it seem at the time as if she was the driving force in the matter and typically when one is the first signatory on an ArbCom action it is because that is the person who proposed the action. Had her involvement been as significant as she suggested when it was put out, then the HubSpot edit-a-thon just a few months prior would be a much bigger deal and all those finer details we were fussing over would take on much greater importance.
Absolutely. What's triggering my suspicions now is how obvious it is that the particular content is extremely important to her. When it was pointed out that she shouldn't use linkedin as a source, she went on a big hunt for other sources –two rounds of this – rather than simply say, "oh, you're right" and remove the materials referenced to the subjects' (clients'?) resumés. And there are still plenty of claims which follow linkedin, youtube, etc. Not Breitbart, thanks heavens; that would really cross the line.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by EarlStatler » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:45 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:30 pm
EarlStatler wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:22 pm
Because here it's complete clear what happend, and it is absolute unnecessary to take any measure to one of the two except a warning for GW. Because she did a few things wrong. And where are we now? In a huge conflict with Breitbart involved!
My impression is that she really really does not want to remove any of those articles or the claims therein. The sources used to back them are arbitrary, but their presence is non-negotiable. Why is this? Would some of those who wrote to thank her earlier now ask, "hey, what happened to my article?" I don't know.
There is no discussion about her edits had to be checkt, and not by her. But, the rotten and corrupt arbcom system makes this impossible. And there is also no discussion about the fact it was treble wrong to mute TDA. But what I said before, it was also not necessary to block or to mute here. A good, neutral lock at here edits and a warning had been enough, and had been a clear signal to the others.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

Proabivouac
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:56 pm

Let's take a look at Ms. Warfare's latest project, Wikipedia's article on "Incels":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 7#Ideology
Wikipedia wrote: Some incels support the works of fringe social psychologist Brian Gilmartin, author of the book Shyness and Love which gained popularity among incel communities, and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson.
Yet Gilmartin's book itself is not even cited, even though it is said to part of the "incels'" foundational canon. Gilmartin is a professor of psychology at Montana State University (Not that this is some giant deal, although any job in academia is hard to come by.) The "fringe" label is cited to Peter Baker of Elle magazine, not a scholarly source at all.

https://www.elle.com/life-love/sex-rela ... -celibacy/

Elle provides no background on Mr. Baker which would support the conclusion that he is qualified to render such an assessment.

From the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... #Gilmartin
Dave Dial wrote: Gilmartin should not be referenced.
There you have it. I'm convinced.
GorillaWarfare wrote: You also occasionally use bizarre sources, such as translations/reprints of articles that are already being cited in the page (discussed elsewhere on this talk page) or opinion/blog pieces.
GorillaWarfare whose own promotional bios freely use blog posts as well as social media profiles, linked in, youtube etc. As for opinion pieces, the references section is loaded with them.

Further down in the page, the editor who'd referenced Gilmartin is threatened wth a topic ban for what strikes me as a perfectly reasonable argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 8#islamism
Dave Dial wrote:
Thylacoop5 wrote: The following editors: Dave Dial, Jorm, GorillaWarfare have recently suggested that this article should primarily focus on misogyny and violence and exclude other topics; with the rationale that this is where media coverage primarily focuses. By analogy, Islamism in the media primarily focuses on terrorism by groups such as ISIS/AL-Qaeda. Yet the islamism article has 14 subsections that do not mention militancy. Doesn't that show that there is a precedence on Wikipedia of broadening the focus?
What I think is that at the very least, a topic ban is coming for you.
Last edited by Proabivouac on Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Renée Bagslint » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:07 pm

Jorm -- that takes me back. Wasn't he the chap responsible for the over-ambitious, under-designed, poorly-implemented failure called Flow? Sacked by Lila?

Proabivouac
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:13 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:07 pm
Jorm -- that takes me back. Wasn't he the chap responsible for the over-ambitious, under-designed, poorly-implemented failure called Flow? Sacked by Lila?
He was also the best the WMF could scrape up for the Fabio role in the romance novel of their fundraising banners. Though I will guess that he was not similarly awash in unsolicited entreaties, such being the nature of our sexist society.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Auggie » Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:34 pm

Here we see the absurd conclusion of wp:verifiability. Elle magazine is given more weight than a published book, to the point where the reader is not even allowed to see a citation of it.

And the ever popular, "we will ban you," discussion tactic.

sashi
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:26 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by sashi » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:38 pm

Proabivouac wrote:How is DA's writing for Breitbart any worse than you and Keilana planting your gender gap initiatives in the press?
I think the conventional RLC view would be that Breitbart is part of Team Mercer who are part of Team Koch, which is reason enough to be excluded from a media publication associated with Team Clinton / Team Omidyar, etc. This latter media foundation's tax exempt status comes from being a non-profit dedicated to continuing education, no? The fact is, Team Koch doesn't like paying for decent teachers any more than Team GAFAwmf does. Still, there'll surely be semantic drone-bot rides through the sum of human typing very soon...

Golden decoder ring: RLC = raving loony center

Proabivouac
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:55 pm

Auggie wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:34 pm
Here we see the absurd conclusion of wp:verifiability. Elle magazine is given more weight than a published book, to the point where the reader is not even allowed to see a citation of it.

And the ever popular, "we will ban you," discussion tactic.
A review of Gilmartin's book Shyness and Love: Causes, Consequences, and Treatment by psychologist Jonathan M. Cheek of Wellesley College was published in the American Psychology Association's Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books:
Jonathan M. Cheek wrote: Overall, Shyness and Love contains both great strengths and many weaknesses.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ve-Shy_Men
If it's so "fringe," why is it being reviewed in Contemporary Psychology? That we are looking instead to Elle is a joke. What about Selina Tobaccowala's opinion about all this; should this not be included?

Atop the talk page is a Frequenty Asked Questions section:
Wikipedia POV pushers wrote: Q3: Why is this article so negative?
A3: Articles on Wikipedia reflect the way subjects are covered in reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The articles cover aspects of those subjects in accordance with the extent to which those aspects are covered in reliable sources. There are negative elements of the subject in this article because that is the way many of the reliable sources cover it.
Here's another gem from the talk page:
GorillaWarfare wrote: As for the Donnolly article, it was mentioned here, but I believe it was removed per [[WP:UNDUE]]. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =839716380
This refers to a paper published in Journal of Sex Research:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 0109552083

Denise Donnelly and Elisabeth Burgess are professors of sociology at Georgia State. This doesn't make them correct, of course. Still, a trend is evident in which Ms. Warfare will use just about anything down to linkedin and youtube to support her own activist point of view, but when academic sources are brought forth she calls them "fringe" and "undue weight." Then she and her programmer buddies explain that the article is negative because that's what the "reliable sources" say.

Proabivouac
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Proabivouac » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:57 am

On one of the HubSpot femtech spam articles, that promoting the otherwise obscure Caitlin Kalinowski, GorillaWarfare edit wars to restore an honor Ms. (?) Kalinowski was alleged to have received, insisting "this is career-related":
GorillaWarfare wrote: In 2015 she was featured in the San Francisco Business Times' 40 Under 40 list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =846946666
This was then removed by Fram as a false claim:
Fram wrote: Removed false claim (she was mentioned by one of the "40 under 40", she wasn't featured as one of them though)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =846960076
Meanwhile, at the Village Pump, an editor shows up to complain about obvious bias in several articles, including Gamergate controversy, the arbitration case for which Warfare first recused herself before changing her mind mid-stream, and her very own creation Incel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _Wikipedia
Wopr wrote: Or take, for example, the article on "incel". Again, the lede is excessively long, and a full-on no-holds-barred assault on these people. The lede feels the need to mention, among other minutia, that these people are "mostly white, male and heterosexual"…Specifically mentioning "white, male and heterosexual" in the lede is quite clearly pushing a certain socio-political agenda. Anybody who denies this is either delusional or deliberately lying. Anybody who is even slightly intellectually honest will admit that there is a political message being shoved in there…

And oh boy, do I even need to mention the gamergate controversy article? It's arguably the most biased article in the entirety of wikipedia.
To which a Wikipedia administrator named Golbez responds in Warfare's defense:
Golbez wrote: Wikipedia reflects reality, and reality has a well-known liberal bias.
And offers the helpful totally non-offensive suggestion:
Golbez wrote: The only thing more pathetic than nailing yourself to a cross is whining that someone else hasn't nailed you to a cross yet.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests