Who gets to criticise whom

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Renée Bagslint
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Who gets to criticise whom

Post by Renée Bagslint » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:25 pm

A complex and satisfying drama develops around the latest Signpost. It is already noted somewhere else so I'll just mention one little part of it that seemed interesting. Gorilla Warfare describes it as "misogyny" for Kudpung to criticise Katherine Maher, the Executive Director of the WMF, for things done by the WMF that she might not have been directly personally responsible for. GW posts a link to her own blog , where she criticised then Executive Director Lila Treikov for things that, as the introduction to the blog makes clear, she thinks Lila might not have been directly personally responsible for.

I can think of two plausible explanations for this. One is that GW thinks it's OK for her as a woman to criticise a woman in a leadership position, but it's never OK for a man to do so because that's always and only misogyny. The other is that GW thinks it's always OK for anyone to criticise people when she agrees with the citicism, and never OK for anyone to criticise people when she disagrees with the criticism. Any other suggestions?

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by Auggie » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:57 pm

That's a dangerous path. Maher is ED and with that job comes a lot of criticism. It's just part of the deal, no matter who you are. If we want to argue that Maher shouldn't be criticized so much because of her gender, then it makes it harder for the next women to get that position.

Pudeo
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:29 am

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by Pudeo » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:00 pm

Pretty absurd to call it misogyny. Just how many people absolutely hate Jimbo Wales, and he's a man? Almost like something what some kind of a identity politics troll would come up just to be a shit-stirrer. Then again it's probably worth remembering GW was one of the two Arbs who voted against site-banning CarolMooreDC who invoked misogyny towards everyone she disagreed with.

But GW has a lot of important friends so Fram is screwed, even if it was a personal attack / casting aspersions without evidence.

sashi
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:26 pm

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by sashi » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:35 pm

I think it was probably the unflattering picture. Instead of that swirly smiley WMF photo they dug up a spiritless candid to illustrate the article. Whoever announced a Gary Null conference at Speakerpedia with a fake photo did worse. Is it specifically sexist / misogynistic? No, maybe not, just misguided. One could be asking why the WMF is hiring the daughters of the elite rather than the daughters of the revolution.

But that's a different question entirely.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by Auggie » Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:30 pm

haha 200 days of the year traveling. then has the chutzpah to complain about her modest apartment.

daughters of the elite is right.

Proabivouac
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:46 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:25 pm
Gorilla Warfare describes it as "misogyny" for Kudpung to criticise Katherine Maher, the Executive Director of the WMF, for things done by the WMF that she might not have been directly personally responsible for.
Bizarrely enough, she also charges Kudpung with "misogyny" for calling her "Molly White":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =857352671
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854511592

New rule: he or she who says "misogyny" first loses.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:59 am

GorillaWarfare is someone who believes "micro-aggressions" should be restricted on Wikipedia. Expecting her to have a calm and rational response to minor perceived slights against women is expecting her to act against her own standards. Kudpung didn't bring Maher's sex into it and his criticism didn't really require any assumptions about her sex. He was essentially criticizing her for a dereliction of duty as she goes about jet-setting around the world to sell snake oil about Wikipedia and fake news rather than addressing problems being raised by the community about the Foundation's partners. The fact GorillaWarfare was widely supported in spite of engaging in a very odious and baseless form of character assassination says all that needs to be said about "sexism" on Wikipedia.

Proabivouac
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by Proabivouac » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:01 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:59 am
The fact GorillaWarfare was widely supported in spite of engaging in a very odious and baseless form of character assassination says all that needs to be said about "sexism" on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia administrator Fram blocked Ms. Warfare for personal attacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _requested

This was undone thirteen minutes later by Andrew Lih ("Fuzheado") of Wikimedia DC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... llaWarfare
https://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Committees

Wikipediocrats give her a barnstar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 8#Hi_there

The entire discussion on Wikipediocracy, led by eternal head sysop Somey, is dedicated to defending the honor of WMF chief Katherine Maher and former arbitrator Gorilla Warfare.

Proabivouac
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by Proabivouac » Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:11 am

Now on Wikipediocracy, eternal head sysop Somey has deleted posts critical of Gorilla Warfare:
Somey wrote: I've just deleted a bunch of posts in this thread, mostly from guys who are apparently terrified of even moderate levels of female assertiveness, and are having a hard time looking past their narrow, nasty-ass ideologies for even the minute or two it takes to reconsider posting things that make it glaringly obvious. I've also deleted some posts from GW herself, who should never have had to waste her time responding to this sort of crap. And frankly, I'm thinking we should just ban anybody who unironically uses the term "SJW" automatically from now on - it's bullshit, it's intentionally divisive, and above all, it's moronic.
Go Wikipedia, go!

He goes on to promise that he will remove evidence that the deletions ever took place:
Somey wrote: We've been presented with a situation here that neatly exemplifies how Wikipedia creates an environment where people cannot work together because the system is all but designed to attract the worst elements of society and make everyone hate and loathe each other, and what happens? A significant number of you just want to use it to get your little digs in at the "annoying feminists." Admittedly, many (if not most) of you are new members, and perhaps some of you thought this was just another "hate site" because you read it on Wikipedia. If so, this is your reminder that you shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

Be a mensch. It's not too much to ask.

PS. I'm going to delete this post too, soon enough, and any responses to it. This is non-negotiable.
This is better than Selina why?

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Who gets to criticise whom

Post by Auggie » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:17 am

If you really want to push some buttons, float the Somina/Selomi theory over there. It is hilarious.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest