Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Biographies of Living Persons _ “Wikipedia Is Sexist”

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Elisa Gabbert @ 22 Feb 2011)

Wikipedia has been on my mind lately, after hearing the statistic passed around a week or so ago that something like 87% of Wikipedia contributors/editors are male. This didn't surprise me in the least, and initially made no impression on me whatsoever. A few days later the obvious consequences of this dawned on me: Wikipedia is sexist. Of course this affects the content. Of course this bias trickles down and bleeds into the articles in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. I wouldn't want to read a magazine if only 1 out of 10 of its editors/contributors were women. Especially if the whole point of the magazine was to present objective, unbiased information in an encyclopedic fashion.

Maybe I'll boycott Wikipedia.

— http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikipedia-is-sexist.html


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 1:30pm) *

QUOTE(Elisa Gabbert @ 22 Feb 2011)

Wikipedia has been on my mind lately, after hearing the statistic passed around a week or so ago that something like 87% of Wikipedia contributors/editors are male. This didn't surprise me in the least, and initially made no impression on me whatsoever. A few days later the obvious consequences of this dawned on me: Wikipedia is sexist. Of course this affects the content. Of course this bias trickles down and bleeds into the articles in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. I wouldn't want to read a magazine if only 1 out of 10 of its editors/contributors were women. Especially if the whole point of the magazine was to present objective, unbiased information in an encyclopedic fashion.

Maybe I'll boycott Wikipedia.

— http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikipedia-is-sexist.html



Wikipedia will miss you, Sweetpea. They can tell when you're reading, you know.

I wonder if Elisa, upon finding that 87% of the writers of some publication were WOMEN would also have concluded that it ipso facto it too would have to be "sexist." Probably not. But if she did, she'd probably be right. Depending on your definiton of "sexist." My own preview as to what WP would look like if it were edited by 87% women, is MSN News.

The top 5 stories on today's MSN News:

1. Search: Where Is the 'Next Top Model' Now? Bing: See some of Tyra's fierce shots Bing: How to look like a top model. Watch: Girl rocks Lady Gaga’s latest hit. Video: Cutest Pledge of Allegiance you’ll ever hear

2. Check Out the View: Ultracool Glass Houses.

3. 5-Year-Old Knows What She Wants. Watch: You want to marry this kid when she grows up? Your heart might be broken until she gets one thing first. (Wait for it: she says she needs a job, first. How adorable wub.gif )

4. Easy & Smart Ways to Whittle Your Waistline: 15 tips to start losing weight fast. Snap decisions that can save you pounds.

5. Latest: Clampdown in Libya & More Protesters


COMMENT: Well, we made it to world events by number 5, at least. This is MSN on estrogen. I suspect this would be WP also, on estrogen. So, what kind of sexism is it, that you want to see? Fewer Powerrangers and Starwars, and more smart style information and children doing cute things? What's the frigging difference?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 5:26pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 1:30pm) *

QUOTE(Elisa Gabbert @ 22 Feb 2011)

Wikipedia has been on my mind lately, after hearing the statistic passed around a week or so ago that something like 87% of Wikipedia contributors/editors are male. This didn't surprise me in the least, and initially made no impression on me whatsoever. A few days later the obvious consequences of this dawned on me: Wikipedia is sexist. Of course this affects the content. Of course this bias trickles down and bleeds into the articles in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. I wouldn't want to read a magazine if only 1 out of 10 of its editors/contributors were women. Especially if the whole point of the magazine was to present objective, unbiased information in an encyclopedic fashion.

Maybe I'll boycott Wikipedia.

— http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikipedia-is-sexist.html



Wikipedia will miss you, Sweetpea. They can tell when you're reading, you know.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Gabbert&oldid=415620878 …

Jon ph34r.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Just so everyone understands what's going on here —

A blogger writes a http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikipedia-is-sexist.html that is critical of Wikipedia, and the very next day our old fiend Fred Bauder ups and starts a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Gabbert&oldid=415620878 …

Now, maybe she doesn't know it yet, but that's a hostile act and a threat, not a compliment, and she's just lost her freedom and her peace of mind to a Blog Of Masked Identity Sources (BOMIS). If she knew even a tithe of what we know, she'd immediately seek out a sympathetic admin, get herself declared WP:Unnotable, and continue to seek her notability and her salvation in the Real World.

But will she wise up in time ???

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 10:30am) *

Just so everyone understands what's going on here —

A blogger writes a http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikipedia-is-sexist.html that is critical of Wikipedia, and the very next day our old fiend Fred Bauder ups and starts a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Gabbert&oldid=415620878 …

Boy, what a nice illustration that BLP is essentially a punitive act, and WP's main weapon of punishment for "RL" people in meat-space.

Perhaps this part of the thread should be annexed, as maybe somebody could point it out to anybody left at ArbCom who has any ethics left, and get Bauder banned.

On second thought, that's probably a waste of time. Just by inspection of my premises. ermm.gif

Posted by: Text

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey)
A blogger writes a blog post that is critical of Wikipedia, and the very next day our old fiend Fred Bauder ups and starts a BLP on her …


And in return, someone should tell her why Bauder isn't a lawyer anymore, assuming those are true facts and not just random stuff made for laughs...

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Text @ Thu 24th February 2011, 1:43pm) *

...not just random stuff made for laughs...

Yeah, state supreme courts intervene in random people's lives, just for giggles.

Posted by: Text

QUOTE

Yeah, state supreme courts intervene in random people's lives, just for giggles.


http://www.saisathyasai.com/wikipedia/fred_bauder_court_record.html

Ok then

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Now I know what you're thinking — How come someone as notable as Fred Bauder does not have his own Wikipedia Biography? Just for starters, he is the founder of his very own wiki-style internet encyclopedia, not to mention being a major figure on Wikipedia itself.

If you do search Wikipedia for information, you get only this — Fred Bauder (T-H-L-K-D)

Curious, no?

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

That's some really nasty dirty pool by Fred. The article is fairly clearly crafted to identify her as a search engine optimizer, a category of people that is widely regarded as evil by the people who live in wikispace. This is pretty much as close to being a hatchet job without actually waving the hatchet.

In any responsible organization, this article would not have been published, not without a "living persons" review that would have reduced it to a few telegraphic phrases ("Internet marketer, blogger, and poet residing in Texas" is really all you need) or omitted it entirely. However, Wikipedia is not a responsible organization.

Posted by: carbuncle

Here's a suggestion for Gabbert - go http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/; post about this episode in the comments (with a link to your blog post, of course); wait for your biography to disappear.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:12pm) *

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey

I am not sure how Gabbert views the prospect of having a Wikipedia biography, but I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 9:12am) *

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey


It's up to the reasonable folk at WP now - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elisa_Gabbert

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 6:28pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:12pm) *

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey


I am not sure how Gabbert views the prospect of having a Wikipedia biography, but I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.


I always “love” the hypocrisy of Anonymous Cowards who write that kind of BS.

No doubt the AC/BS-er in question is operating under the ludicrous fantasy that he and his whole gang of AC/BS bloggers are some kind of Free Anonymous Press For All Purposes (FAPFAP).

Oh …

Nevermind …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Could a global mod please move this thread back to the Blog Forum?

Or maybe even General Discussion?

There's an ongoing discussion on the original topic that I probably should have left in place.

I can't tell how things will turn out with the BLP issue — we all know how that goes — but I'll sort out the BLP-related posts from the Sexism-related posts as we go.

Thanks,

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE

Elisa,

Returning to the topic at the head of the page, and speaking on behalf of the entire male moiety, I feel a need to clear up a couple of points.

Wikipediot Culture is not male culture, it is not even boy culture — it is obnoxious punk culture. It is simply a sad but perhaps hormonally conditioned fact that adolescent males are over-represented in obnoxious punk culture.

As a result, it is not just the larger share of women who find themselves alienated by Wikipediot Culture — pretty much anyone but obnoxious punks will eventually become alienated by it.

— http://www.blogger.com/profile/13378153853941137426 • http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikipedia-is-sexist.html?showComment=1298602837647#c5399487764019486477


Posted by: Sylar

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:28pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:12pm) *

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey

I am not sure how Gabbert views the prospect of having a Wikipedia biography, but I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.


lol It's funny that people are this dumb.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sylar @ Thu 24th February 2011, 10:18pm) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:28pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:12pm) *

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey

I am not sure how Gabbert views the prospect of having a Wikipedia biography, but I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.


lol It's funny that people are this dumb.

Yes it is. Since if somebody ever puts up a bio of Fred, I am pretty sure HE will discover the malice. happy.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 25th February 2011, 12:25am) *

Since if somebody ever puts up a bio of Fred, I am pretty sure HE will discover the malice. happy.gif


Well, it's been done already — Fred Bauder (T-H-L-K-D) — but if you're Well-Protected with Wiki-Prophylaxis, you can get yer truth cleaned.

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 7:30am) *

I wouldn't want to read a magazine if only 1 out of 10 of its editors/contributors were women.

- Elisa


She almost won me over then came out with that sexist sentence above. Oh the irony.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 25th February 2011, 5:25am) *

QUOTE(Sylar @ Thu 24th February 2011, 10:18pm) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:28pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:12pm) *

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey

I am not sure how Gabbert views the prospect of having a Wikipedia biography, but I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.


lol It's funny that people are this dumb.

Yes it is. Since if somebody ever puts up a bio of Fred, I am pretty sure HE will discover the malice. happy.gif

Hey, he's got one in http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Fred_Bauder.

Creating the bio was stupid, but I think he did it because he liked the woman's post. But okay, stupidity is a greater evil than malice.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 5:28pm) *
...I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds - they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

The evils in question are HYPOCRISY and INTIMIDATION.

Fred Bauder, whose own privacy is carefully protected by his craven cronies in the Wikipedia Cult, is attempting to intimidate a critic by invading her privacy.

You can't outlaw hypocrisy, but there ought to be a law against that form of intimidation.

Given time, there will be.

Jon hrmph.gif

Posted by: Gruntled

QUOTE(Kevin @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:34pm) *

It's up to the reasonable folk at WP now - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elisa_Gabbert

So far, it looks like everyone is reasonable, except maybe this fellow:

â–  Keep Minor poet, interesting blogger. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Since when is being a minor poet grounds for notability?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE

Back to the topic …

Right, the casual reader of the megablog we know as Wikipedia is likely to remain oblivious to its organizational culture — the character and the conduct of the people who produce its contents.

More careful observers, however, and anyone who finds that peculiar culture touching on matters of personal and professional concern, will find plenty of things to think about when first they peer beneath the veneer of its facile contents.

— http://www.blogger.com/profile/13378153853941137426 • http://thefrenchexit.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikipedia-is-sexist.html?showComment=1298651769844#c3326978041033194561


Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 6:37am) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 5:28pm) *
...I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds - they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?

I'm undecided on this one. While my first thoughts were that this was Bauder using WP as a revenge platform, after HRIP7's comments I took a look at some of the comments Bauder has made on the gendergap mailing list. Ignoring that "category:women in sexually provocative poses" nonsense on Commons, he seems to be saying the right things in the posts that I sampled. I think it is possible that he created the bio because he agrees that WP is biased, not as an attack on the blogger. It should still be deleted, though.

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 6:37am) *

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.

Only a hundred? I don't think any amount of bloviating blog posts will have an effect on WP unless they inspire people to take action there. Perhaps this is a case of having your cake and eating it too - Gardner gets to say that she doesn't agree with it but doesn't have to do anything that will drive away editors.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th February 2011, 12:13pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 6:37am) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 24th February 2011, 5:28pm) *

… I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.


Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds — they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?


I'm undecided on this one. While my first thoughts were that this was Bauder using WP as a revenge platform, after HRIP7's comments I took a look at some of the comments Bauder has made on the gendergap mailing list. Ignoring that "category:women in sexually provocative poses" nonsense on Commons, he seems to be saying the right things in the posts that I sampled. I think it is possible that he created the bio because he agrees that WP is biased, not as an attack on the blogger. It should still be deleted, though.

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 6:37am) *

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.


Only a hundred? I don't think any amount of bloviating blog posts will have an effect on WP unless they inspire people to take action there. Perhaps this is a case of having your cake and eating it too - Gardner gets to say that she doesn't agree with it but doesn't have to do anything that will drive away editors.


The thing that All Normal People understand here — people who haven't spent so much time in the orbit of Wikipedia that they've forgotten what their life before was like — is that pinning a target to someone's back or scrawling someone's name on on a toilet stall wall is ipso facto a hostile act.

Jon hrmph.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 1:38pm) *
The thing that All Normal People understand here — people who haven't spent so much time in the orbit of Wikipedia that they've forgotten what their life before was like — is that pinning a target to someone's back or scrawling someone's name on on a toilet stall wall is ipso facto a hostile act.
Of course, most Wikipediots are unwilling to accept that Wikipedia is the internet's equivalent to a toilet stall wall.

Another factor to keep in mind is that many many Wikipedians have been the targets of bullying in the past, and (as The Big Bang Theory pointed out earlier this season) it's terribly easy, and terribly common, for bullying victims to become the bully themselves as soon as they get even the slightest smidgeon of power.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Yes, and a bit more seriously, it's a textbook theme in the psychopathology of child abuse.

Jon hrmph.gif

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 25th February 2011, 7:49pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 1:38pm) *
The thing that All Normal People understand here — people who haven't spent so much time in the orbit of Wikipedia that they've forgotten what their life before was like — is that pinning a target to someone's back or scrawling someone's name on on a toilet stall wall is ipso facto a hostile act.
Of course, most Wikipediots are unwilling to accept that Wikipedia is the internet's equivalent to a toilet stall wall.

Another factor to keep in mind is that many many Wikipedians have been the targets of bullying in the past, and (as The Big Bang Theory pointed out earlier this season) it's terribly easy, and terribly common, for bullying victims to become the bully themselves as soon as they get even the slightest smidgeon of power.

Sorry, was I not being sufficiently knee-jerk anti everything WP again? I guess saying the article should be deleted is insufficient. Then again, this is the week that one of the mods dubbed me an "officious moron", so I guess anything I say is suspect even if it seems to be reasonable.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 25th February 2011, 12:49pm) *



My theory of humor is that it's connected to child-raising. Move beyond slapstick and you get THIS kind of humor, which is ironic. It is adults talking past each other in the presense of the child. I think there is no real "explanation" of "why" this kind of thing SHOULD be funny. But we find it funny. We get pleasure out of it, because if we couldn't do this around children, we'd have to strangle them. smile.gif So that's why nature gave us this type of funnybone. I hypothesize. Of course, in science there's no one right answer. happy.gif


-- Sheldon

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Yup, the yux jes keep on comin' …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: chrisoff

One of Wikipedia's goals for 2015:

QUOTE
Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increasing the number of Global South editors to 37 percent.


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/wikipedia_wants_1_billion_monthly_visitors_2015

Posted by: chrisoff

From the same article:

QUOTE
The Wikimedia Foundation, parent company of Wikipedia, announced its five-year strategic plan. It's Wikimedia's first time laying out a roadmap of sorts, and this one represents the collaborative efforts of more than a thousand participants.


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/wikipedia_wants_1_billion_monthly_visitors_2015

Who are these "more than a thousand participants"?

QUOTE
A little over 400 million unique visitors drop by the site every month and browser just shy of 18 million articles. There are currently 80,000 active editors, or editors who make at least five edits a month. What Wikipedia is trying to do, then, is double up its traffic and editors over the next four years.


Does the Wikipedia "community" have any say in this, or is it even aware of these "goals"?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE
There are currently 80,000 active editors, or editors who make at least five edits a month. What Wikipedia is trying to do, then, is double up its traffic and editors over the next four years.

So what ... they will make 10 edits a months? Doesn't sound so heroic ... what is the ratio of good edits to vandalism and crap? How efficient is it?

How on earth can they just measure a click as something good?

Posted by: chrisoff

Will Malleus (uber male) rise to the rescue of of his admin meatpuppet Mon3?

QUOTE
Y chromosome needed


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=419397504&oldid=419141696

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Mon 28th February 2011, 10:16am) *

One of Wikipedia's goals for 2015:

QUOTE
Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increasing the number of Global South editors to 37 percent.


Whenever I see the word "diversity," I release the safety catch on my Browning.

Generally the use of THAT word means that somebody, in the name of political correctitude, has been actively messing with the natural, normal, and expected distribution of interests in healthy humans. Which COLLECTIVELY are expected to be diverse (to be sure, and by definition), but for any GIVEN subject or activity (like sitting and typing an encyclopedia into a machine) tend to be, and should tend to be, rather badly skewed by every possible metric.

Liberals! hrmph.gif There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask "why?" Liberals dream of things that never were, and ask "Why shouldn't we put together a program to get people to do something they really don't want to...?" wink.gif

Posted by: chrisoff

Why has a thread discussing “Wikipedia Is Sexist” been moved to
"Biographies of Living Persons'?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Fri 18th March 2011, 10:37am) *

Why has a thread discussing “Wikipedia Is Sexist” been moved to "Biographies of Living Persons'?


It was the title of a critical blog posting that Fred Bawder mentioned on the WMF GenderGoof List, and then promptly went out and started a BLP on the blogger with a lot of impertinent personal info. We raised a ruckus here calling for an AfD, and the last time I looked the BLP had been deleted. Why Fred Bawder has not been deleted yet no one quite knows.

Jon dry.gif