Marcus Bachmann, Shankboned! Options

[carbuncle]

As predicted by Somey, it was only a matter of time until someone created an article on Marcus Bachmann, husband of Michele Bachmann, future President of the United States of America. So whodunit? Noted gay Republican citizen journalist and amateur photographer David Shankbone.

At this point the article doesn't contain any speculation on Marcus Bachmann's own sexuality, but I imagine that it is coming soon, as the issue has broken into mainstream consciousness. And, frankly, I think we've seen how this plays out with an endless stream of anti-gay religious leaders - how long before someone steps into the waiting spotlight to claim their 15 minutes of fame in exchange for details of 15 minutes spent with Bachmann?

One might think that after the very unsubtle work of Cirt on the "santorum" article and a masked stranger on the now deleted Lewinsky (neologism) (the snooze alarm for those who missed the wake-up call), WP would be better placed to deal with the Wikibomb™, but no.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The obvious point which is being coatracked here is that federal funds are allegedly being used to try to un-homosexualize people, which is certainly grounds in some people's minds for creating an attack article. This should be added to the "cults" arbcom case, and that case should be re-named "attack articles."

[carbuncle]

I'm waiting for someone to add the Dan Savage material to the article.

• 12 July 2011 - Dan Savage podcast in which he mocks Bachmann's lisp
• 14 July 2011 - Dan Savage blog post "Marcus Bachmann's Big Gay Problem" in which he calls Bachmann "a lying closet case who's made convincing other gay people to join him in the closet his life's work"
• 14 July 2011 - Slate article "Dan Savage: Bully" critical of Savage's mockery of efeminate traits
• 15 July 2011 - "Read My Lisp", another Slate piece talking about Savage's comments and gaydar

I must say, I am enjoying the coincidences around WP's Marcus Bachmann article. First, it is created by David Shankbone, who has been discussed here quite a bit. Then we get a Dan Savage injection to help cement the connection to Cirt's "santorum" wikibomb. And now Johann Hari (William Saletan namechecks Hari in his Slate piece for describing Saletan as a gay writer). Who's next?

[EricBarbour]

Who's next?

You, probably, if you keep chasing after Benjiboi's socks/non-socks/whatever......

Frankly, Benji-whatever was probably justified in cutting Larry Norman down in size.
Thanks to crazy Christian Smjwalsh, it's now the second-longest, second-most-excessively-referenced bio on Wikipedia.
262k bytes, 635 bloody references.

Hmm, perhaps this will lead to evangelical-vs-gay editwars? Is Benji the new Grawp?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[carbuncle]

Who's next?

You, probably, if you keep chasing after Benjiboi's socks/non-socks/whatever......

Frankly, Benji-whatever was probably justified in cutting Larry Norman down in size.
Thanks to crazy Christian Smjwalsh, it's now the second-longest, second-most-excessively-referenced bio on Wikipedia.
262k bytes, 635 bloody references.

Hmm, perhaps this will lead to evangelical-vs-gay editwars? Is Benji the new Grawp?

Ha! I'm hardly chasing Benjiboi's socks - they seek me out. I don't bother doing anything about them most of the time. It usually doesn't take very long before he gets caught. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

There has been a lukewarm evangelical-vs-gay editwar going on for some time now. User:Lionelt was very actively slashing gay-related material at one point, but I haven't been keeping up.

[Tarc]

Nominated for deletion.

I despise wiki-activism of any ideological bent, whether it is the Zionists, the anti-abortionists, or the gay agenda drivers doesn't matter. All of them need to be kicked to the curb.

[EricBarbour]

Keep - I disagree with Tarc's analysis. COI: I wrote this stub. The article is heavily sourced to Marcus Bachmann-specific mainstream media stories, for which there are many, meeting WP:V. The lack of a Marcus article causes WP:WEIGHT issues on wp:Michele Bachmann, particularly in regards to his Christian counseling clinic, and his family's farm. Michele's long article has enough Michele-related controversy that lumping in Marcus-related issues is not optimal. Michele Bachmann's strong campaign has made him the focus of attention as a possible First Gentleman--only increasing--which is why in the spirit of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive we have a strong interest to explain to our readers this subject neutrally, without speculation. On the article's first day of creation it had 2,000 views, showing this need exists; I imagine today's hits will be much higher. --David Shankbone 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that nice. Shanker's learning to Wikilawyer his way thru the "community".

As predicted, the toads come out, and vote "keep" because "notable" like little robots.
Not a goddamn word about the article's defamatory nature.

Once again, I will point to Phil McGraw (T-H-L-K-D) as the paragon of a Wikipedia article being used to intentionally shit on someone.

[gomi]

I despise wiki-activism of any ideological bent, whether it is the Zionists, the anti-abortionists, or the gay agenda drivers doesn't matter.

Why not simply despise Wikipedia, and urge it to be "kicked to the curb"? It is the enabling function for wiki-activism. I would proffer that virtually all editing on Wikipedia consistutes wiki-activism of some form or another. Some are simply more benign than others.

[EricBarbour]

I despise wiki-activism of any ideological bent, whether it is the Zionists, the anti-abortionists, or the gay agenda drivers doesn't matter.

Why not simply despise Wikipedia, and urge it to be "kicked to the curb"? It is the enabling function for wiki-activism. I would proffer that virtually all editing on Wikipedia consistutes wiki-activism of some form or another. Some are simply more benign than others.

He's right, Tarc. Everytime you log in and start cleaning up some mess or other (usually messes you had nothing to do with, right?) you enable.

And you help keep the place cooking, so Cirt and Shankbone, and people even worse than them, will have a "playground-thing" to play in. Even opposing them will not help. They need to be dragged off their heroin, forcibly. I keep saying that Wikipedia is a drug, okay? As you've seen, over and over again, people use it like an opiate.

So stop enabling.

[lilburne]

Who's next?

You, probably, if you keep chasing after Benjiboi's socks/non-socks/whatever......

Frankly, Benji-whatever was probably justified in cutting Larry Norman down in size.
Thanks to crazy Christian Smjwalsh, it's now the second-longest, second-most-excessively-referenced bio on Wikipedia.
262k bytes, 635 bloody references.

Hmm, perhaps this will lead to evangelical-vs-gay editwars? Is Benji the new Grawp?

Bleedin hell. I remember him. When I was a youngster, I used to go to the local manse for a biscuit, coffee, and an argue after they had finished their Sunday whotsit. Used to go the Sunday thing but got banned for dropping the hymn books on their heads of those below the balcony. Still they didn't mind the arguing, and one of them was keen on me playing for the Chrysler chess team.

Anyway I recall Larry Norman doing a gig at the Methodist Central Hall 1970-71 and went along to see what it was all about. Highly amusing with them all swaying along doing peace signs man. But the best bit was when they waved a finger in the air and chanted "one way Lord, one way". I stopped going shortly after that, still played chess for the Chrysler for the next 4 or 5 years though.

[Sololol]

After 30+ years of marriage to Michelle Bachmann I could understand if he was no longer interested in women.

This post has been edited by Sololol:

[EricBarbour]

Wikipedia could be "taken down" by one of the big boys (Google, microsoft etc...) within a few weeks if they decided to devote the resources to so doing. They are of course highly unlikely to do so, unless they were going to make some serious moolah from it.

Yea, that's what everyone thought about google+, the "facebook killer". How's that working out?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)


hurr hurr.......

Ever seen the list of top Google+ users?......

#1 Mark Zuckerberg → - 225,849
#2 Larry Page → - 124,103
#3 Sergey Brin → - 87,348
#4 Vic Gundotra → - 57,189
#5 Mashable News → 146 55,614
#6 Robert Scoble → 4,012 54,937
#7 Leo Laporte → 427 54,628
#8 Kevin Rose → 99 50,143
#9 Felicia Day → - 45,511
#10 Ray William Johnson 4,983 45,373

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Would you mind explaining what Google+ is?

[Michaeldsuarez]

Would you mind explaining what Google+ is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B

Google's new social networking website ("invite-only" at the moment). I prefer their Google Wave idea.

Edit: You may have noticed some changes to the look and feel of Google.com; Google+ is the reason.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Oh. It looks like Betty White's famous mockery of Facebook would apply just as well to this.

[carbuncle]

Delete: if it weren't for his wife running for president noone would care about this guy. Roscelese has no right to malign this BLP by calling him "shady." He provides a valuable service by helping homosexuals overcome unwanted same-sex urges.– Lionel (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not that there's anything wrong with being homosexual," he added quickly, "just as long as they don't actually, you know, have ,um, urges."

[Tarc]

Delete: if it weren't for his wife running for president noone would care about this guy. Roscelese has no right to malign this BLP by calling him "shady." He provides a valuable service by helping homosexuals overcome unwanted same-sex urges.– Lionel (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not that there's anything wrong with being homosexual," he added quickly, "just as long as they don't actually, you know, have ,um, urges."

I can't believe I'm about to throw some support at someone with such a distasteful opinion, but y'know, being opposed to homosexuality isn't a crime. If bible-thumpers want to run these dumb clinics, then they're within their right to.

[Milton Roe]

I despise wiki-activism of any ideological bent, whether it is the Zionists, the anti-abortionists, or the gay agenda drivers doesn't matter.

Why not simply despise Wikipedia, and urge it to be "kicked to the curb"? It is the enabling function for wiki-activism. I would proffer that virtually all editing on Wikipedia consistutes wiki-activism of some form or another. Some are simply more benign than others.

He's right, Tarc. Everytime you log in and start cleaning up some mess or other (usually messes you had nothing to do with, right?) you enable.

And you help keep the place cooking, so Cirt and Shankbone, and people even worse than them, will have a "playground-thing" to play in. Even opposing them will not help. They need to be dragged off their heroin, forcibly. I keep saying that Wikipedia is a drug, okay? As you've seen, over and over again, people use it like an opiate.

So stop enabling.

Except WP is the "opiate" of very many different groups, all at the same time. It's the opiate of social activists too lazy to make placards and march and sing. It's the opiate of social retards who enjoy revenge cyberbullying. It's the opiate of obscessive-compulsive knowledge curators. It's the opiate of Asimovian Saganish explainers who have no natural outlet in today's world of squashed authorship profits. It's the opiate of teachers who couldn't stand the pain of navigating into the viscous social politics and unionism of the formal K12 system (which makes WP itself look like kindergarten).

Different pains, different brains. Tell me what a given editor spends his/her time doing on WP, and I'll tell you what itch they scratch by doing that.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Asimovian Saganish explainers

Whew! You don't usually see that kind of invective around here.

[Kelly Martin]

Different pains, different brains. Tell me what a given editor spends his/her time doing on WP, and I'll tell you what itch they scratch by doing that.

Indeed. That is why Wikipedia is so successful: it scratches any number of different itches. And so many of the people whose itches are being scratches are those who are otherwise marginalized in society, so they are really defensive of their backscratcher and will find tooth and nail to keep it. They literally do not have anywhere else to go.

One of the other things this does for Wikipedia is that it allows them, for any criticism of their motivations, to trot out someone who clearly doesn't fit the ascribed motivation. That's because there is no universal motivation for participating in Wikipedia; there's way too many different motivations and there isn't even a large plurality of editors all sharing the same one.