Is Fred Bauder losing it? Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

Herostratus' essay was restored to project space by Jimbo. Cyclopia is distinguishing himself on the essay's talk page by arguing that it is culturally biased to assume that women in porn movies don't enjoy receiving facials.

Weird and a bit annoying, since to discount that viewpoint is completely biased against a large number of people who DO find acts like that misogynistic.

However, that "Egg Centric" guy is just downright creepy, and even a little scary. One, anyone who's even followed some world news should know that human trafficking is a very serious problem in parts of Asia and Africa. Secondly, that "plenty" of people want to be prostitutes is just delusional. While I have certainly read of some high-dollar prostitutes who chose that life, the reality is that many more literally have no choice.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: Wed 16th February 2011, 11:52pm

[Sylar]

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.

Interesting. I take it you are homosexual?

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

Interesting. I take it you are homosexual?

Sylar,

Let us caution you, once and once only, that WR is not an online dating service.*

Jon

* Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[HRIP7]

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.

Interesting. I take it you are homosexual?

Sylar,

Let us caution you, once and once only, that WR is not an online dating service.*

Jon

* Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[EricBarbour]

I'm wondering if Crossmr is a Korean demon..........he tried to get Herostratus banned today, with spectacular lack of success.

[Jon Awbrey]

I'm wondering if Crossmr is a Korean demon … he tried to get Herostratus banned today, with spectacular lack of success.

Water seeks it own level — you can bet that Wikipedia will be back in the toilet before long, no matter what anyone does in the short term.

Jon

[Peter Damian]

Is there something wrong with it
> being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only
> one
> confused about this.
>
> MZMcBride

There is plenty wrong with messing with us. This is hardly the first
time. I doubt advancing the project is on your agenda.

Fred
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/064255.html

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 5th March 2011, 9:01am

[Somey]

Hmm, Fred's definitely having some issues, assuming posts like that aren't just his idea of a joke...

Meanwhile, in that same thread, which is ostensibly about the WMF's decision to hire a so-called "storyteller" as an actual salaried position, there's this post from someone named "Jason Donovan":

Wikimedia Foundation seems to be turning into another non-profit bent on social outreach. The internal structure appears to be mutating into something very corporate, from the constant direction of consultants/analysts to expansion into emerging markets. They all seem to resemble any other corporation trying to expand, overlooking that fact that the actual product is governed and maintained by an active community which is responsible for most of the content.

One look at the current staff page points to the flawed vision of the internal structure, with titles like chief talent and culture officer, which sounds more like a job from a futuristic science fiction or even a cult, a successful one of course. The fundraising part of the staff seems to be under the community department, communications seems to be under global development. There seems to be only one person in the finance and administration department.

Chief propaganda officer doesn't seem to be far behind, unless you prefer raconteur which is more or less the same title.

Mr. Donovan seems to understand the situation better than most, I'd have to say, aside from the fact that the internal structure (and intent) was always very corporate.

Earlier in the thread, high-ranking WMF bete noir Michael Snow wrote this:

If people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather than creating drama about things they aren't.

Sadly for Mr. Snow, people mostly do understand how collaboration on a wiki doesn't work, which is why so many of them don't "accept the projects" as anything more than a handy means of figuring out what their kids are talking about when they ask them to buy them video games.

More importantly, the "drama" has little or nothing to do with what the projects "are" or "aren't." When you assemble and operate the biggest anonymous ideological battlefield in the world, it's just one of the things you're going to end up with.

[Peter Damian]

Mr. Donovan seems to understand the situation better than most, I'd have to say, aside from the fact that the internal structure (and intent) was always very corporate.

Yes (but shouldn't your post be in the other thread? This is the Fred Bauder 'where have all the marbles gone' thread).

[taiwopanfob]

Earlier in the thread, high-ranking WMF bete noir Michael Snow wrote this:

If people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather than creating drama about things they aren't.

I think the best answer to this is from one "The Mono" in the same thread:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/064263.html

None of these erstwhile managers significantly participate any longer (if they ever did at all) -- no doubt due to nasty emails from Legal -- so how can they possibly know what they are talking about?

[thekohser]

It's like they wrote this Storyteller job description for David Shankbone!

(Mods, yes... how about making a new "Storyteller" thread. Lots of potential for this, well apart from Fred Bauder.)

[bi-winning]

Fred supported Herostratus's essay at ANI, so I doubt he is in favour of turning Commons into the world's biggest collection of images of women in sexually appealing poses. I think what he is trying to do is highlight the sheer disproportionate mass of such images by creating a category. Whether that is the best way of addressing the problem is debatable, but one woman on the Gendergap list pointed out recently that going by Commons coverage, women wearing jean shorts seem to have a notable aversion to wearing tops.

I assume that's what Fred's doing. Commons is so sick that it seems like a non-ironic suggestion.

This post has been edited by bi-winning: Sun 6th March 2011, 12:23am

[A User]

Fred supported Herostratus's essay at ANI, so I doubt he is in favour of turning Commons into the world's biggest collection of images of women in sexually appealing poses. I think what he is trying to do is highlight the sheer disproportionate mass of such images by creating a category. Whether that is the best way of addressing the problem is debatable, but one woman on the Gendergap list pointed out recently that going by Commons coverage, women wearing jean shorts seem to have a notable aversion to wearing tops.

I assume that's what Fred's doing. Commons is so sick that it seems like a non-ironic suggestion.

Creating a category to me seems like deckchair shuffling. You're just rearranging an existing problem without having to deal with it.

[MZMcBride]

Sadly for Mr. Snow, people mostly do understand how collaboration on a wiki doesn't work, which is why so many of them don't "accept the projects" as anything more than a handy means of figuring out what their kids are talking about when they ask them to buy them video games.

I don't believe there is any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to support this claim. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. I guess I'll just assume this was hyperbole and move along.

[Detective]

I don't follow the title of this thread. What did Fred ever have that he is now losing?

[thekohser]

I guess I'll just assume this was hyperbole and move along.

Be kind, and don't poke the Somey.

[Somey]

Be kind, and don't poke the Somey.

That's OK...

Mr. McBride is right, to some extent. The problem here is that there's no real benchmark to determine what the "normative" level of participation should be for something like Wikipedia. People fall back on things like the response rate for direct mail campaigns (i.e., back in the day, you were doing well if you got 1 percent, spectacularly well if you got 2 percent, etc.), or the number of people who get flu shots, things like that. The fact is, we don't know, but we do know that the WMF thinks it should be higher, and they say that it would be higher if people would "just try to understand" or if they could "just get their message out." That's the thing I object to, the idea that Wikipedia editing is essentially a good thing, and that the only reason more people don't do it is because they somehow "don't understand." Are they saying people are stupid? I should hope not, but that seems to be their position.

I think people "understand" perfectly well, the way most rabbits understand that hopping into a cave in Springtime isn't necessarily a good idea, and that maybe they should stay clear of caves that time of year. Obviously some rabbits will go into the cave anyway, and many of them will be eaten by hungry bears. But if they all did that, there wouldn't be many rabbits left, would there?

[Jon Awbrey]

No Comment …