Is Fred Bauder losing it? Options

[thekohser]

What do you think?

[Gendergap] Category:Women in sexually appealing postures
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@fairpoint.net)
Tue Feb 8 15:01:29 UTC 2011


I've created Category:Women in sexually appealing postures on Commons.

This is a matter of correctly classifying the sort of pictures we have
discussed here which have this quality, sometimes inappropriately.

Category:Men in sexually appealing postures is obviously required also.

In terms of the category tree on Commons Category:Women in sexually
appealing postures is one of four branches of Categories: Women,Posture,
and People by setting

Category:Girls by posture (birth – 13 (puberty))
Category:Adolescent girls by posture (13 - 17 years)
Category:Women by posture (18 - 59 years)
Category:Old women by posture

I think this exercise should serve to clarify the nature of the images we
are hosting and should be an aid to further discussion.

Fred

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 14th February 2011, 3:31am

[Jon Awbrey]

Hide your dotters …

Jon

[EricBarbour]

He lost it a long time ago. Problem is, he knows just what kind of insane ideas to bring to WP,
so they'll get approved. Sick community.

[Zoloft]

Best entry in the GenderGap list:
"Maybe we need a special rule for this mailing list: after every five
posts you have to take a break, step away, and try to convince a woman
you know that they should be contributing to Wikipedia. After they
make their first edit, come back to the mailing list...

-- phoebe"

[Jon Awbrey]

Best entry in the GenderGap list:

"Maybe we need a special rule for this mailing list: after every five posts you have to take a break, step away, and try to convince a woman you know that they should be contributing to Wikipedia. After they make their first edit, come back to the mailing list …

— phoebe"

Oh wait, I think I hear the doorbell ringing …

Jon

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia has never had any coherent idea how to categorize things. In 2005 or thereabouts, a group of librarians offered to help Wikipedia develop a more rational approach to categorization then the one they use. They were rebuffed with extreme vigor, an action that has certainly contributed to librarians' general dislike and distrust of Wikipedia.

[Ottava]

We had 4 active females in the IRC room last night. I linked it. They universally thought Fred was an idiot.


If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.

[melloden]

We had 4 active females in the IRC room last night. I linked it. They universally thought Fred was an idiot.


If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.

Remind me again ... wasn't Fred the one who allegedly slept with one of his coworkers? Or something like that, and he got disbarred or whatever?

[Abd]

We had 4 active females in the IRC room last night. I linked it. They universally thought Fred was an idiot.

Active? What kind of active? And how would Ottava know?

If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.

Ottava's concept of all problems: Bad Person. Get Rid of Bad Person, all will be well. Repeat as Needed.

Eventually people figure this out, and get rid of Ottava.

He is not, in fact, the Cause of All Problems, but, when he's around, the others seem ... minor.

[Jon Awbrey]

If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.

Yeah, and then they could rename it Fembotopedia, because that would be all that's left to edit the damn thing.

Jon

[thekohser]

Remind me again ... wasn't Fred the one who allegedly slept with one of his coworkers? Or something like that, and he got disbarred or whatever?

Worse, or whatever.

[Peter Damian]

I think they have the right idea.

Amazing that Joe Reagle, who has written a whole book about Wikipedia, claims never to have noticed 'Wikipi-tan'.

those of you who know me might remember that there is one, more illogical, thing that gets under my skin more than almost anything else: Wikipe-tan and her short skirt and thigh-high stockings. Why, WHY is it ok that we even joke about that being our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture that permeates a lot of collaborative sites these days. It doesn't even occur to a lot of men that that could be off-putting. They certainly don't mean it to be off-putting. And they're a little wounded when someone points out that, well, it *is*.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000027.html

I think the segment of the female population who would actively seek out participation in a site where Wikipe-tan was a frequently-seen icon is very, very small. I'm particularly concerned about one of the "examples" at the bottom labeled "Gothic Lolita Wikipe-tan, which is entirely the wrong message.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000051.html

Yeah, it's total boy zone material!!

As a woman who grew up in boys clubs - dabbling in the "gaming" culture as a teenager (yes, Dungeons and Dragons, Advanced, thanks!) etc, I've seen that stupid anime Sailor Moon wanna-be cartoon in a million different ways and I hated it as a teenager and I hate it as an adult. A teenage boys dream, that's what I always saw it as.

I was talking about my experience at the Wikipedia 10 event here in DC - I compared it to a "gaming convention." Not every guy is into anime and coding who is a Wikipedian, but, when the "mascot" came on the screen during a video most people (most = men) cheered, except, well, me, and the women from the Library of Congress who didn't seem to impressed.

But, I also don't see that mascot used too frequently, perhaps I'm hanging out in the right circles.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000052.html

Joseph Reagle joseph.2008 at reagle.org
I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000067.html

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 14th February 2011, 6:44pm

[Jon Awbrey]

Re: Wikipe-tan

Amazing that Joe Reagle, who has written a whole book about Wikipedia, claims never to have noticed ‘Wikipi-tan’.

Not all that amazing —

As a general rule, the less people know about Wikipedia the more they like it.

Jon

[Peter Damian]

Another insightful comment about hardcore pornography here

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000443.html

And a useful link to an essay by Herostratus. Note the attempts to censor what he is saying (from the opponents of 'censorship' of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398752398

Perhaps we were too harsh about Herostratus. He is saying that hardcore pornography is misogynistic. I might add, most pornography is misogynistic.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 14th February 2011, 7:33pm

[Jagärdu]

Remind me again ... wasn't Fred the one who allegedly slept with one of his coworkers? Or something like that, and he got disbarred or whatever?

Worse, or whatever.

Quite the he said she said situation. I'd love to see the court transcript because I've having a very hard time imagining the two women sounding more credible in this situation. The new girlfriend and soon to be ex-wife in the same room talking to the husband's lawyer on the phone ... the lawyer proceeds to tell the soon to be ex-wife confidential information then attempts to solicit her and the girlfriend (new girlfriend of this woman's soon to be ex-husband) for money? If true it would support the lunatic claim, but its just rather hard to believe. Then again I don't live in Colorado ...

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Mon 14th February 2011, 7:55pm

[thekohser]

Quite the he said she said situation. I'd love to see the court transcript because I've having a very hard time imagining the two women sounding more credible in this situation. The new girlfriend and soon to be ex-wife in the same room talking to the husband's lawyer on the phone ... the lawyer proceeds to tell the soon to be ex-wife confidential information then attempts to solicit her and the girlfriend (new girlfriend of this woman's soon to be ex-husband) for money? If true it would support the lunatic claim, but its just rather hard to believe. Then again I don't live in Colorado ...

So, you're putting your hunches above the written opinion of state supreme court justices?

That's interesting.

What are your credentials?

[Somey]

At the risk of playing Fred's Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Fred is setting up these categories merely to prove the obvious point, which is that Wikipedia is incapable of dealing with the porn situation on its own? Given that so many Wikipedians have completely missed this point, maybe Fred thinks he knows the magical secret to ending (or at least putting a dent in) Wikipedian "cluelessness" on this issue. He'll fail, of course, but knowing that in advance hasn't stopped him in the past.

I have to say, these latest developments in the "Wikipedia Needs Women" saga are threatening to move it up into the "classic" level as far as WP Silliness History is concerned. Apparently they seem to think they can solve the "problem" by giving themselves even more venues than they already have in which they can demonstrate why the "problem" exists.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Another insightful comment about hardcore pornography here

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000443.html

And a useful link to an essay by Herostratus. Note the attempts to censor what he is saying (from the opponents of 'censorship' of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398752398

Perhaps we were too harsh about Herostratus. He is saying that hardcore pornography is misogynistic. I might add, most pornography is misogynistic.

I agree. Very insightful, which is obviously why various porn protectionists are out to kill it any way possible. They couldn't get it deleted outright, so instead they'll try to change it to the point that it's unrecognizable and doesn't say anything at all.

[Jagärdu]

Quite the he said she said situation. I'd love to see the court transcript because I've having a very hard time imagining the two women sounding more credible in this situation. The new girlfriend and soon to be ex-wife in the same room talking to the husband's lawyer on the phone ... the lawyer proceeds to tell the soon to be ex-wife confidential information then attempts to solicit her and the girlfriend (new girlfriend of this woman's soon to be ex-husband) for money? If true it would support the lunatic claim, but its just rather hard to believe. Then again I don't live in Colorado ...

So, you're putting your hunches above the written opinion of state supreme court justices?

That's interesting.

What are your credentials?

Huh? Never said any such thing. I said, from reading the available summary, the entire thing *seems* unbelievable, and would like to therefore see the court transcripts. It would be interesting to know what was said in court to make it seem less unbelievable. That said, what type of credentials are you looking for?

[carbuncle]

At the risk of playing Fred's Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Fred is setting up these categories merely to prove the obvious point, which is that Wikipedia is incapable of dealing with the porn situation on its own? Given that so many Wikipedians have completely missed this point, maybe Fred thinks he knows the magical secret to ending (or at least putting a dent in) Wikipedian "cluelessness" on this issue. He'll fail, of course, but knowing that in advance hasn't stopped him in the past.

So you're saying that Fred is just looking for a happy ending?