     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> On vulvas and assholes, by Sue Gardner
thekohser
post Sat 1st October 2011, 12:05am
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Sue Gardner actually talks some sense here, but I kind of choked when she (the one who refuses to say how much the WMF paid the consulting firm to handle the donors survey) noted:
QUOTE
we’ve become an echo chamber: we hear only voices like our own, expressing points of view we already agree with. People who believe other things fall silent or abandon the conversation or are reduced to impotent rage.


Disclose the amount paid to Q2 Consulting, Sue, and then we'll let you start taking credit for your cogent interpretations of what's going on all around you, on your watch.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Sat 1st October 2011, 2:29am
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 1st October 2011, 1:05am) *

Sue Gardner actually talks some sense here, but I kind of choked when she (the one who refuses to say how much the WMF paid the consulting firm to handle the donors survey) noted:
QUOTE
we’ve become an echo chamber: we hear only voices like our own, expressing points of view we already agree with. People who believe other things fall silent or abandon the conversation or are reduced to impotent rage.


Disclose the amount paid to Q2 Consulting, Sue, and then we'll let you start taking credit for your cogent interpretations of what's going on all around you, on your watch.

Well, a year ago we thought that the Harris study's recommendations for a personal image filter might end up buried and forgotten. That hasn't happened, and this is a courageous post by Sue. Kudos.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Sat 1st October 2011, 6:37am
Post #3


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



Indeed, it took guts for her to write that. She is calling the Wikipedia communities collectively a bunch of irresponsible children, and they're not going to like that, not one bit. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 1st October 2011, 9:09am
Post #4


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 30th September 2011, 11:37pm) *

Indeed, it took guts for her to write that. She is calling the Wikipedia communities collectively a bunch of irresponsible children, and they're not going to like that, not one bit. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Fine, but how long has she been WMF director? Almost four years?

And she's just beginning to realize the place is run by arrogant little boys??

Evidently she hasn't read the timeline.

I'd be happy to offer some excerpts.
QUOTE

February 6th
Five Wikipedia administrators are removed of their "duties" by Jimbo Wales after a Wikipedia-War erupts over userboxes. Userboxes are decorative images that editors use to identify themselves on their editor pages. A userbox was created by User:Paroxysm and stated that the user "identifies as a pedophile". Wikipedia libertarians who supported the userbox battled against those who found it distasteful.
April 19th
Danny Wool indefinitely blocks Eric Möller (Eloquence (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) for "reckless endangerment -- OFFICE". After some too-ing and fro-ing, Jimmy Wales unblocks Möller the same day. Wool, a paid employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, had "stubbed" and protected two articles while representing WP:OFFICE, which means that he is acting under the authority of the Wikimedia Foundation to resolve urgent legal problems. Möller, a researcher for the Wikimedia Foundation and partner of board member Angela Beesley, unprotected the same articles without discussion.
June 19th
Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch attempts to clarify bad edits made to his biography and is confronted by an anonymous editor KSmrq (T-C-L-K-R-D) who writes, "You do not get to choose whether or not an article on you appears in Wikipedia, and you have no veto power over its contents. The article can cast you as a genius or an imbecile, a respected scientist or a crackpot. [...] Wikipedia does not operate by ''your'' rules, but by its own conventions; I suggest you learn to accept it. " Haisch described his experience in the New York Times.
August 2nd
Numerous dates of death are mischievously added to biographies of living retired US baseball players. The falsehoods are discovered only after shocked relatives had contacted players themselves.
September 25th
Erik Möller replaces Angela Beesley on the Wikimedia Foundation board after an election process later described as a "disgrace" by Beesley. The election was marred by leaks, a "list of endorsement" by Möller, and controversial interventions by Jimmy Wales.
October 26th
The 'MONGO Arbitration case' comes to a close, and sets a precedent for the 'BADSITES' disputes which dominate the site for two years. The decision allows for the removal of links to sites that host criticisms of Wikipedians, regardless of whether they were relevant or on internal project pages.
December 4th
Angela Beesley creates a mailing list and an external wiki for use exclusively by female Wikipedia editors, called WikiChix. Due to the approved culture of secrecy and fake identities that dominates Wikipedia, the list inevitably becomes infiltrated by males disguising themselves as female editors.

And that was just from 2006.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 1st October 2011, 9:19am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 1st October 2011, 9:49am
Post #5


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



If that woman had any guts, she'd start by kicking David Gerard out of Wikipedia permanently.
Because here he is, trolling her.
QUOTE
David Gerard
September 28, 2011 at 11:29 PM

This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to be abusing its power), you frame their arguments as badly-formed and that they should therefore be ignored.

This is somewhat problematic.

QUOTE
David Gerard
September 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

I also find it odd that this post completely fails to mention the massive de:wp poll voting 85% against the imposition of the filtering system.

I note also that you fail to acknowledge this is an imposition.

This is a strange framing of the issue.

And he's far from the only one.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Sat 1st October 2011, 1:47pm
Post #6


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sat 1st October 2011, 2:29am) *
Well, a year ago we thought that the Harris study's recommendations for a personal image filter might end up buried and forgotten. That hasn't happened, and this is a courageous post by Sue. Kudos.

Judging by the way the reports were written (and the three stage way they were rolled out), I have no doubt that Harris wrote the report to arrive at the conclusions he knew the WMF (or possibly just Gardener) wanted. Without going back and reading those reports again, I seem to recall that Harris and Harris didn't even bother to do the research that they proposed in the first part of the report - remember how they were going to examine what other major websites did and how they handled these issues? I think someone told them that none of that applies to WP because, uh, WP is, uh, different, uh, somehow.

Although it will ruffle the feathers of some of the ideologues, having an image filter that is not enabled by default does almost nothing to address the issues that it is intended to mitigate. It will enable the WMF to say that they have done something, while not causing a major upset with their editors. Recall how Jimbo was able to sell flagged revisions to the press, yet we don't have flagged revisions. The average person thinks that we do, because they read about it online. I don't find that to be very courageous (although I do give Gardener credit for her blog post).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Sat 1st October 2011, 7:39pm
Post #7


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 1st October 2011, 10:49am) *


And he's far from the only one.


Yep the fuckwad MzMcBride was doing a good bit of laying on the bullshit too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 3rd October 2011, 3:30pm
Post #8


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I think this is ridiculous. Sue is wrong. The WMF is not an echo chamber. It is a minority bully pulpit for the fringe. The content filter survey verified that the majority disagrees with the view on pornographic images, yet the minority is the one given all the power. It is catering to the fringe for whatever ridiculous reasons. Sue's second in command is definitely responsible for a lot of the giving control over to the fringe from de.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Wed 12th October 2011, 8:11pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 3rd October 2011, 4:30pm) *

I think this is ridiculous. Sue is wrong. The WMF is not an echo chamber. It is a minority bully pulpit for the fringe. The content filter survey verified that the majority disagrees with the view on pornographic images, yet the minority is the one given all the power. It is catering to the fringe for whatever ridiculous reasons. Sue's second in command is definitely responsible for a lot of the giving control over to the fringe from de.

So what, is no one paying attention to the Foundation list any more?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 8 16, 6:42am
 
     
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=ab37d7dc785b412316aacc6d4e6ed144&showtopic=35017&st=0&p=285460&#entry285460
wikipediareview.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-36
100848
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KJRWOGXEGCSWJJYGL63XL7AZPV4L5CEA
<urn:uuid:d965c62e-cef6-4b6e-b1d2-1d20e6383b81>
2016-08-26T06:42:15Z
192.254.236.99
sha1:7JBJ7IQGSY66GHQTZLRGL7NNGGCMSYFN
<urn:uuid:d9b09668-1649-4259-b428-db8a2ae2cef0>
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=ab37d7dc785b412316aacc6d4e6ed144&showtopic=35017&st=0&p=285460&#entry285460
length
response
<urn:uuid:5fb4903d-75c2-49f2-889c-ecfe10ce73f5>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-153-172-175.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-36
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf