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:

[jsalsman]

So, shortly after this topic was posted here on WR, Wikimedia UK trustee Fæ removed a graph of the number of homeless children in the US, saying "homeless children [are] only indirectly related to prostitution," even though several sources and statements in the article make the direct connection abundantly clear. Then he complains that "due to the easier availability of campaigning material in the USA, a better balance of sources and (geographic) points of view need to be maintained."

Is the number of homeless children indirectly or directly related to child prostitution?

Does the article look like it has a geographic bias? Most of its statements and sources are not specific to the US.

Is the second paragraph of the Outreach and law enforcement section truly only applicable to the US as Fæ claims?

Is Fæ trolling for accusations about his motivations in relation to his recent difficulties so that he can claim to be attacked by b& WRers?

This post has been edited by jsalsman:

[EricBarbour]

Is Fæ trolling for accusations about his motivations in relation to his recent difficulties so that he can claim to be attacked by b& WRers?

Just more evidence that Mr. Van Haeften is watching WR like a hawk. He really isn't much different from Shankbone, the same paranoia, the same floparound attention-whoring. I've known a few gay men, even was employed by one long ago, and none of them acted like this. Evidently Wikipedia gives the impression of being very PC, so it attracts people like Fae--his professional career and even his sexuality are secondary to his need for power and attention. He apparently took a big pay cut to work for WMUK.

Wikipedia = The New Vaudeville. I'm surprised they don't have more on-wiki suicides.