Options

[jsalsman]

Someone explain to me why, when Director Gardner creates an article about some humorist author in Boston or a dozen emo kids who get killed in Baghdad on suspicion of being gay, a bunch of editors pitch in and help her out and tell her what a good job she's doing, but when she writes an article on hundreds of thousands of homeless kids who have to sell their bodies to survive, it's all crickets?

Don't tell me Wikipedians are perverts. They're almost entirely prudes afraid to face the decay in their own society when they could be arguing over how many animated penises to have on Commons instead. Pathetic.

(IMG:http://i39.tinypic.com/1zp62og.png)

This post has been edited by jsalsman:

[Silver seren]

Have you guys even bothered to look up the term? It's used extensively throughout all the literature, from the news, to books, to academic articles.

This is a pretty good study, even if it's kind of old.

[Somey]

Have you guys even bothered to look up the term? It's used extensively throughout all the literature...

I did, but just because they coined it at least two decades ago doesn't mean they couldn't come up with something better, even now.

However, point taken. Please carry on with your Sue Gardner community-absorption efforts!

[Silver seren]

Have you guys even bothered to look up the term? It's used extensively throughout all the literature...

I did, but just because they coined it at least two decades ago doesn't mean they couldn't come up with something better, even now.

However, point taken. Please carry on with your Sue Gardner community-absorption efforts!

It really has nothing to do with her. Making the article has nothing to do with the importance of the term.

[Somey]

It really has nothing to do with her. Making the article has nothing to do with the importance of the term.

No need to get defensive about it, Mr. Seren - I think you may be missing the general point here. You can (and, I suppose, do) make a good case that the term is important, and the issue of Ms. Gardner's actually making the article is immaterial, at least in the context of this particular thread here.

I believe Mr. Salsman's point was that there are "WMF groupies" among the WP user and admin community who will follow VIP editors like Sue Gardner and Jimbo around, and if the VIPs should start an article, whether or not it has merit or encyclopedic "value," it will be improved by those groupies, very quickly, to the point at which it can't be proposed for deletion or even merging into another, more appropriate, article.

You might argue that there's nothing wrong with this phenomenon, but you can't really argue that the groupies (not to mention the phenomenon itself) don't exist, can you? And really, the issue isn't that the phenomenon is good or bad in relation to any particular article, the issue seems (to me) to be that Sue Gardner or some other VIP could conceivably take advantage of it to promote a cause or organization that might not otherwise "merit" one.

Maybe this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but Sue Gardner has hypocritically claimed that her Wikipedia activities are somehow "totally separate" from her Foundation activities, because she knows that the Foundation Director's writing of Wikipedia articles could expose the foundation under Section 230 - and yet she just goes and does it anyway. That's wrong, and she should stop, but she probably figures "in for a penny, in for a pound."