“Wikipedia Is Sexist”, Elisa • The French Exit Options

[A User]

I wouldn't want to read a magazine if only 1 out of 10 of its editors/contributors were women.

- Elisa

She almost won me over then came out with that sexist sentence above. Oh the irony.

[HRIP7]

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey

I am not sure how Gabbert views the prospect of having a Wikipedia biography, but I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

lol It's funny that people are this dumb.

Yes it is. Since if somebody ever puts up a bio of Fred, I am pretty sure HE will discover the malice.

Hey, he's got one in Dramatica.

Creating the bio was stupid, but I think he did it because he liked the woman's post. But okay, stupidity is a greater evil than malice.

[Somey]

...I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds - they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.

[Jon Awbrey]

The evils in question are HYPOCRISY and INTIMIDATION.

Fred Bauder, whose own privacy is carefully protected by his craven cronies in the Wikipedia Cult, is attempting to intimidate a critic by invading her privacy.

You can't outlaw hypocrisy, but there ought to be a law against that form of intimidation.

Given time, there will be.

Jon

[Gruntled]

It's up to the reasonable folk at WP now - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elisa_Gabbert

So far, it looks like everyone is reasonable, except maybe this fellow:

■ Keep Minor poet, interesting blogger. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Since when is being a minor poet grounds for notability?

[Jon Awbrey]

Back to the topic …

Right, the casual reader of the megablog we know as Wikipedia is likely to remain oblivious to its organizational culture — the character and the conduct of the people who produce its contents.

More careful observers, however, and anyone who finds that peculiar culture touching on matters of personal and professional concern, will find plenty of things to think about when first they peer beneath the veneer of its facile contents.

— Jon Awbrey • 25 Feb 2011 (11:36 am)

[carbuncle]

...I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds - they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?

I'm undecided on this one. While my first thoughts were that this was Bauder using WP as a revenge platform, after HRIP7's comments I took a look at some of the comments Bauder has made on the gendergap mailing list. Ignoring that "category:women in sexually provocative poses" nonsense on Commons, he seems to be saying the right things in the posts that I sampled. I think it is possible that he created the bio because he agrees that WP is biased, not as an attack on the blogger. It should still be deleted, though.

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.

Only a hundred? I don't think any amount of bloviating blog posts will have an effect on WP unless they inspire people to take action there. Perhaps this is a case of having your cake and eating it too - Gardner gets to say that she doesn't agree with it but doesn't have to do anything that will drive away editors.

[Jon Awbrey]

… I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds — they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?

I'm undecided on this one. While my first thoughts were that this was Bauder using WP as a revenge platform, after HRIP7's comments I took a look at some of the comments Bauder has made on the gendergap mailing list. Ignoring that "category:women in sexually provocative poses" nonsense on Commons, he seems to be saying the right things in the posts that I sampled. I think it is possible that he created the bio because he agrees that WP is biased, not as an attack on the blogger. It should still be deleted, though.

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.

Only a hundred? I don't think any amount of bloviating blog posts will have an effect on WP unless they inspire people to take action there. Perhaps this is a case of having your cake and eating it too - Gardner gets to say that she doesn't agree with it but doesn't have to do anything that will drive away editors.

The thing that All Normal People understand here — people who haven't spent so much time in the orbit of Wikipedia that they've forgotten what their life before was like — is that pinning a target to someone's back or scrawling someone's name on on a toilet stall wall is ipso facto a hostile act.

Jon

[Kelly Martin]

The thing that All Normal People understand here — people who haven't spent so much time in the orbit of Wikipedia that they've forgotten what their life before was like — is that pinning a target to someone's back or scrawling someone's name on on a toilet stall wall is ipso facto a hostile act.

Of course, most Wikipediots are unwilling to accept that Wikipedia is the internet's equivalent to a toilet stall wall.

Another factor to keep in mind is that many many Wikipedians have been the targets of bullying in the past, and (as The Big Bang Theory pointed out earlier this season) it's terribly easy, and terribly common, for bullying victims to become the bully themselves as soon as they get even the slightest smidgeon of power.

[Jon Awbrey]

Yes, and a bit more seriously, it's a textbook theme in the psychopathology of child abuse.

Jon

[carbuncle]

The thing that All Normal People understand here — people who haven't spent so much time in the orbit of Wikipedia that they've forgotten what their life before was like — is that pinning a target to someone's back or scrawling someone's name on on a toilet stall wall is ipso facto a hostile act.

Of course, most Wikipediots are unwilling to accept that Wikipedia is the internet's equivalent to a toilet stall wall.

Another factor to keep in mind is that many many Wikipedians have been the targets of bullying in the past, and (as The Big Bang Theory pointed out earlier this season) it's terribly easy, and terribly common, for bullying victims to become the bully themselves as soon as they get even the slightest smidgeon of power.

Sorry, was I not being sufficiently knee-jerk anti everything WP again? I guess saying the article should be deleted is insufficient. Then again, this is the week that one of the mods dubbed me an "officious moron", so I guess anything I say is suspect even if it seems to be reasonable.

[Milton Roe]

My theory of humor is that it's connected to child-raising. Move beyond slapstick and you get THIS kind of humor, which is ironic. It is adults talking past each other in the presense of the child. I think there is no real "explanation" of "why" this kind of thing SHOULD be funny. But we find it funny. We get pleasure out of it, because if we couldn't do this around children, we'd have to strangle them. So that's why nature gave us this type of funnybone. I hypothesize. Of course, in science there's no one right answer.


-- Sheldon

[Jon Awbrey]

Yup, the yux jes keep on comin' …

Jon

[chrisoff]

One of Wikipedia's goals for 2015:

Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increasing the number of Global South editors to 37 percent.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/wiki...y_visitors_2015

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Mon 28th February 2011, 5:17pm

[chrisoff]

From the same article:

The Wikimedia Foundation, parent company of Wikipedia, announced its five-year strategic plan. It's Wikimedia's first time laying out a roadmap of sorts, and this one represents the collaborative efforts of more than a thousand participants.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/wiki...y_visitors_2015

Who are these "more than a thousand participants"?

A little over 400 million unique visitors drop by the site every month and browser just shy of 18 million articles. There are currently 80,000 active editors, or editors who make at least five edits a month. What Wikipedia is trying to do, then, is double up its traffic and editors over the next four years.

Does the Wikipedia "community" have any say in this, or is it even aware of these "goals"?

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Mon 28th February 2011, 7:27pm

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

There are currently 80,000 active editors, or editors who make at least five edits a month. What Wikipedia is trying to do, then, is double up its traffic and editors over the next four years.

So what ... they will make 10 edits a months? Doesn't sound so heroic ... what is the ratio of good edits to vandalism and crap? How efficient is it?

How on earth can they just measure a click as something good?

[chrisoff]

Will Malleus (uber male) rise to the rescue of of his admin meatpuppet Mon3?

Y chromosome needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=419141696

[Milton Roe]

One of Wikipedia's goals for 2015:

Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increasing the number of Global South editors to 37 percent.

Whenever I see the word "diversity," I release the safety catch on my Browning.

Generally the use of THAT word means that somebody, in the name of political correctitude, has been actively messing with the natural, normal, and expected distribution of interests in healthy humans. Which COLLECTIVELY are expected to be diverse (to be sure, and by definition), but for any GIVEN subject or activity (like sitting and typing an encyclopedia into a machine) tend to be, and should tend to be, rather badly skewed by every possible metric.

Liberals! There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask "why?" Liberals dream of things that never were, and ask "Why shouldn't we put together a program to get people to do something they really don't want to...?"

[chrisoff]

Why has a thread discussing “Wikipedia Is Sexist” been moved to
"Biographies of Living Persons'?

[Jon Awbrey]

Why has a thread discussing “Wikipedia Is Sexist” been moved to "Biographies of Living Persons'?

It was the title of a critical blog posting that Fred Bawder mentioned on the WMF GenderGoof List, and then promptly went out and started a BLP on the blogger with a lot of impertinent personal info. We raised a ruckus here calling for an AfD, and the last time I looked the BLP had been deleted. Why Fred Bawder has not been deleted yet no one quite knows.

Jon