Frankly, that bullshit was so insulting, it deserves to be preserved here.
What a bunch of little fucks. It's like watching a video-gaming chat channel.
The name of the eejit was Lynn Neary as far as I can make out. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Woops! How do you know it was Neary? Renee is only female listed as host of morning edition. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I went to the page and clicked on where it said "Listen to this story". Dmcq (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Maybe I'm being slow or something, but I don't see Neary's name anywhere. NickCT (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's in the clip -- it starts with her saying "Good morning, I'm Lynn Neary".
Equazcion (talk) 16:32, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I got it now. It's not in the clip I originally posted, but it's earlier on in the program. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I just listened to the clip you posted. As already pointed out, it starts ""Good morning, I'm Lynn Neary...". You made a small mistake. No big deal - just admit it and move on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
He already did admit it. Let's not nitpick the details. Peace. Equazcion (talk) 17:31, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to nitpick or make NickCT feel bad for making a small error, but I have noticed that many editors here have great difficulty in admitting mistakes, accepting new information, or simply allowing themselves to change their opinions, so I try to call it out when I see it. My impression is that this is strongly related to demographics of Wikipedia editors, but that is a whole other conversation better suited to the Gender Gap discussion list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
re "many editors here have great difficulty in admitting mistakes" - Agreed. That's probably not a phenomena that unique to WP though. For the record I acknowledged and apologized for my error, before you began to comment.
re "better suited to the Gender Gap discussion list" - Wow.... someone is trying to get a gender war going here? Can't we all just concentrate on being outraged by Neary's comment? NickCT (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you did admit a mistake. You also offered a false and self-serving explanation for why you made the mistake. I don't want to argue about it, but it really is a reflection of the culture here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If he was doing that, it's a reflection of culture, period; hardly a Wikipedia problem. It does seem like you want to argue about it, since you didn't let it go when Nick admitted fault. Try to let it go now, both of you. Equazcion (talk) 19:34, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
It actually is a Wikipedia problem, although one that is shared with other online and real-world communities. And your confrontational attitude here is one of the symptoms. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
re "offered a false and self-serving explanation" - Que? That seems to be a somewhat unkind interpretation.
re "It does seem like you want to argue ... let it go when Nick admitted fault." - Agreed.
re "Try to let it go now" - Let it go? I haven't even grabbed hold of it yet.
re "your confrontational attitude here" - Project much?
Regardless, let's just focus our attention at being outraged with Neary. NickCT (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe she also edits here and is just jealous
Equazcion (talk) 15:50, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I think shes just jealous that more people edit and read Wikipedia in an hour than will ever hear her radio show. Kumioko (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Jesse V. (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's ironic how the people who vandalize Wikipedia or insult the editors are actually the people who use it most.Willdude123|Ƹ21ɘbublliW (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As much as I would love it, I sincerely doubt Lynn Neary vandalizes Wikipedia. However the issue brought up here is a serious one. Academics often don't get involved with the project because it isn't taken seriously, despite its widespread use in academia. Indeed, I was advised a few years ago to not mention editing Wikipedia on my CV, since it would be taken as a mark against me (working on such a "frivolous" project). Instead I was supposed to list my master's thesis, for example, which I doubt even my committee read in its entirety. How do we combat the attitude that working on the number one reference site on the web isn't some refuge for social misfits (at least no more so that the average university department), but a valuable goal which should be recognized in academic circles? --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
We already have a program towards that aim. Join in!  Thelmadatter (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
re "How do we combat the attitude...." - Now that's the real question isn't it. I try to point to external peer reviews which generally suggest that WP has strengths and weakness versus other encyclopedias. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NPR. You guys should grow up. --Zaiger (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)