QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 7th September 2012, 5:07pm)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 29th August 2012, 4:28pm)
This blog mentions
vandalism on Mia Love. Some of it is pretty bad and pure attack vandalism.
I do think it is rather awful that the Wikiculture doesn't bother to stop such things when they really know that it is bound to happen. Seeing some of the claims by JoshuaZ and even SueGardner lately, all I can think is that maybe they are happy to see it put up there and they drag their feet to enforcing BLP because it suits their own prejudice.
The problem is that there is no downside for Wikipedia. The press generally blames anonymous evildoers, rather than querying why Wikipedia allows anonymous evildoers to post stuff like this, and why such abuse immediately goes live and is shown to the world without being checked by anyone.
In the Wikipedias that have flagged revisions, like German and Polish, this sort of thing no longer happens. But the English Wikipedia is let off time and again by the press. In fact, this sort of coverage benefits Wikipedia: it adds page views and leads people to donate money ... when such abuse could be stopped dead in its tracks at the flick of a switch.
I don't think it leads people to donate money. I think the donation pools have become very narrow and mostly from those of a particular political persuasion. The same that Sue Gardner and many others are prejudice towards, and they let things happen like the above instead of implementing the controls so that they can passively allow their bias to be fulfilled. One need only see how discussions on Meta are obviously canvassed by one set of political ideology that cares more about their political side than anything legitimate.
And I say political instead of labeling something, because the ideology is so esoteric and crazy on issues that it is hard to label. Neo-techo-anarchism? Who knows how to really describe it. Basically, it is pushing for some radical anti-copyright movement that gets its jollies by attacking traditionalists on either side that they feel are getting in their way. Any specific issues (religion, sexuality, etc.) are just a cover for the real agenda or a means to pursue a campaign without having to be honest about why.
Making this a new section to go further than above - I don't think Sue Gardner jumped into the Akin/pregnancies after rape issue because she is liberal or has any real feelings on the matter. Instead, it is a cheap way to appeal to feminists during the whole "Wikipedia needs female editors" issue. She thinks that the feminists can be persuaded through gimmicks ("you need to edit here because if you don't your enemies win" and "look at me, I can pretend to be one of you") and then support the whole Wiki movement.
It would probably work since most of the protest groups tend to protest on each others issues regardless if they actually care about them (unions, environmentalists, feminists, etc., are all together at the same rally even though there is no real connection).