Wikipediocracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... II_editors? This certainly won't help.

MadManz wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... II_editors? This certainly won't help.

The attack is not targeting them. Tens of thousands of failed login attempt occured over several hours, so of course a bunch of people working int he same area all got messages.

Auggie wrote:haha Somey mad. Since when is taking cheap shots at leftists against the rules?

That's not what he was doing. We used to ban people on Wikipedia Review for comparing Israelis to Nazis. This is actually worse, because in this case the people he's comparing to Nazis don't have a well-equipped army or nuclear weapons, and are in fact the ones being shot at, in some cases by actual Nazis.

Anybody who wants to feed us whatever false-equivalency bullshit they've designed to assuage their pampered-white-boy guilt or justify their racist cultural inferiority complex can do it on a website they own.

Bezdomni wrote:I've just stumbled across a category (French Jews, with nearly 1000 members), just as new privacy laws go into effect.

Wikipedia's List of French Jews wrote:The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership.

source

There are less than 100 people tagged as French Muslims. Many of these people are alive and quite possibly did not consent any more than those included in the previously mentioned listing from the Wikidex. As far as I've seen, there are no people categorized as French Arabs or as French Palestinians, nothing related to the French Maghreb. There is, on the other hand, a category of "French Arabists" with over 40 members.

Even Dreyfus -- for whom there's a link to the culture juive et judaïsme portal -- is not categorized into some adhoc list of Jewish people on fr.wp ...


Why, exactly, is en.wp so very strange?

ps: the quote above is supported by a reference to an old decision of the Conseil Constitutional which is 1) a primary source and 2) incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't read French. Much more relevant is the CNIL: https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales

Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques, philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement et de 300 000 € d’amende.

Est puni des mêmes peines le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en mémoire informatisée des données à caractère personnel concernant des infractions, des condamnations ou des mesures de sûreté.

But why pick on this list? There are dozens of lists and categories in ENWP by ethnic or religious membership. Would 100 Greatest African Americans (T-H-L) be banned in France?

Poetlister wrote:[W]hy pick on this list? There are dozens of lists and categories in ENWP by ethnic or religious membership.

Would 100 Greatest African Americans (T-H-L) be banned in France?

1) Because it's a list of French Jews, which is shocking to anyone who knows anything about French culture, law & history §. The INSEE (T-H-L) replaced the Vichy National Statistics Service in 1946. From 1978 it became illegal to publish such statistics, so questions of ethnicity & religion are -- as I understand it -- excluded from the census. (This is not necessarily a great thing for research, of course.)

2) Ben, non. But the 100 Grooviest French Rastas might be.

Midsize Jake wrote:

Auggie wrote:haha Somey mad. Since when is taking cheap shots at leftists against the rules?

That's not what he was doing. We used to ban people on Wikipedia Review for comparing Israelis to Nazis. This is actually worse, because in this case the people he's comparing to Nazis don't have a well-equipped army or nuclear weapons, and are in fact the ones being shot at, in some cases by actual Nazis.

Anybody who wants to feed us whatever false-equivalency bullshit they've designed to assuage their pampered-white-boy guilt or justify their racist cultural inferiority complex can do it on a website they own.

yeah u mad.

I don't know what happened ten years ago... maybe you're talking about Jorge? This is why you need me in the super secret forums. No one else is going to understand your cryptic references.

I don't think Cla68 owns a website. Are you taking a shot at someone else?

Auggie wrote:I don't know what happened ten years ago... maybe you're talking about Jorge? This is why you need me in the super secret forums. No one else is going to understand your cryptic references.

No, I'm referring to people who would register, post false-equivalence BS about how Israelis are the same as Nazis almost immediately, and be banned immediately thereafter, with their posts removed. The only way you would have noticed is if you were reading the site almost constantly.

Anyway, all these folks (both then and now) might actually think they mean well, or even that they know what they're talking about, but the fact remains that the vast majority of modern "politically correct" liberal-progressive people - irritating though they may sometimes be - absolutely do not insist that people within their ranks accept the primacy of the group identity over that of the individual. Not in terms of formal (or even informal) ideology, nor in terms of practical organization and tactics. That is, quite simply, a complete and total lie, constantly repeated by right-wing propagandists to make themselves feel less guilty about all the naughty (if not outright despicable) things they've been doing lately - not to mention their failure to get ethnic minorities and women to vote for them. And I repeat, we're not going to be carrying that BS here. I shouldn't even have to point it out, and I wouldn't have to were it not for all the brainwashing that's been going on (mostly in the USA) for the past 20 years.

It's OK to be conservative, maybe even a little prejudiced on occasion, as long as you don't insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. It's also OK to insult left-wingers, tedious though that may be, as long as you don't insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. I know it's harder for hardcore Trumpists, but it should leave most of our right-wing friends plenty of room to operate, no...?

I also understand that the current political situation has far-reaching implications that affect Wikipedia-related matters which therefore makes it nearly impossible for us to insulate ourselves from it, but if you can't come up with some true stuff to use here, you're either not trying or you're just acting as a propagandist. Both of those things are bad.

Midsize Jake wrote:

Auggie wrote:I don't know what happened ten years ago... maybe you're talking about Jorge? This is why you need me in the super secret forums. No one else is going to understand your cryptic references.

No, I'm referring to people who would register, post false-equivalence BS about how Israelis are the same as Nazis almost immediately, and be banned immediately thereafter, with their posts removed. The only way you would have noticed is if you were reading the site almost constantly.

Anyway, all these folks (both then and now) might actually think they mean well, or even that they know what they're talking about, but the fact remains that the vast majority of modern "politically correct" liberal-progressive people - irritating though they may sometimes be - absolutely do not insist that people within their ranks accept the primacy of the group identity over that of the individual. Not in terms of formal (or even informal) ideology, nor in terms of practical organization and tactics. That is, quite simply, a complete and total lie, constantly repeated by right-wing propagandists to make themselves feel less guilty about all the naughty (if not outright despicable) things they've been doing lately - not to mention their failure to get ethnic minorities and women to vote for them. And I repeat, we're not going to be carrying that BS here. I shouldn't even have to point it out, and I wouldn't have to were it not for all the brainwashing that's been going on (mostly in the USA) for the past 20 years.

It's OK to be conservative, maybe even a little prejudiced on occasion, as long as you don't insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. It's also OK to insult left-wingers, tedious though that may be, as long as you don't insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. I know it's harder for hardcore Trumpists, but it should leave most of our right-wing friends plenty of room to operate, no...?

I also understand that the current political situation has far-reaching implications that affect Wikipedia-related matters which therefore makes it nearly impossible for us to insulate ourselves from it, but if you can't come up with some true stuff to use here, you're either not trying or you're just acting as a propagandist. Both of those things are bad.

Oh yes that guy was annoying. It wasn't like real posting, it was just hit and run Israel-bashing. More like political hate spam. I think I saw a piece of it.

I dunno, I still see what Cla said as a harmless cheap shot in the context of a fairly run of the mill forum post. If he wants to call liberals a bunch of Nazis I think we all know it's a bit Godwinny. His point about identity politics being dangerous and dehumanizing is one that resonates with a lot of people, and surely there are connections that can be made between the senseless tribalism of early 20th century Europe and Hillary Clinton writing off entire chunks of the electorate as belonging in baskets. To sum up: Hillary Clinton = Adolf Hitler.

Auggie wrote:To sum up: Hillary Clinton = Adolf Hitler.

Don't make me do it to you too...

Most people here probably know how I feel about Hillary Clinton, but I'll sum up for those who don't: She should never have been nominated, but at the same time, she would have been the smartest, shrewdest, and maybe even the strongest President we've had since FDR, even with only one house of Congress under her party's control. Instead, we ended up with a baboon, and I understand that I'm being really mean to baboons when I say that.

But what people (including yourself, apparently) fail to note here is that when she used the phrase "basket of deplorables" in reference to "about half" of Trump's support base, she didn't realize that most of the people she was referring to were not people at all, in the sense of "We The People," but rather a collection of Russian bots, troll-farm workers, and underemployed neo-Nazis. At that time, it wasn't even all that clear that the term "alt-right" was basically a neo-Nazi sanitizer-label. You can certainly criticize Hillary Clinton for not knowing that, but then you'd have to similarly criticize about 98 percent of all Americans in general at that time. (I'd like to think I myself was in the other 2 percent, but I'll freely admit I had no idea how extensive the whole thing was, at least at that point.)

Also, if one insists on making Nazi references but still wants to be taken semi-seriously by smart people here, as well as in current US political discussions in general, you have to separate the intent of the Nazis (which was, from their perspective, actually utopian) from the realities of life under the Nazi regime. Trumpista Republicans increasingly refuse to do this. They apparently think that if Nazi-like policies were to be implemented in the USA, they could somehow reap the benefits of being able to disenfranchise, imprison, or kill people who disagree with them without the country becoming an international pariah and, ultimately, a fully-isolated police state like North Korea in which anyone - including the Republicans themselves - could be killed just for failing to adequately praise or ass-kiss the Dear Leader. These people have never lived through a real purge, they've never experienced the constant/persistent ramping-up of "purity laws" and how they affect the social order, and so on, ad infinitum. Unfortunately, once you make this key mental distinction, you find that nothing being done by ethnic minorities, women, gays, or even Muslim-Americans bears any resemblance to actual Nazism, but a great deal of what the Republicans are doing does, and very much (and very frighteningly) so. So, the GOP folks won't start making that distinction any time soon.

Meanwhile, voting as a bloc in defense of your interests as a racial (or gender, etc.) minority, especially an oppressed one, is practically the opposite of Nazism - which sought to define "good" Germans and "bad" Germans and find a "soution" by disenfranchising, and later murdering, the "bad" ones. And if someone says "you personally should vote with this particular racial, etc., bloc because it's in your interests to do so," that doesn't mean that person is Hitler-like, even if Hitler may have said something like that to get "pure Aryans" to vote for him. Voting in defense of your interests is just common sense, and if your interests coincide with that of an ethnic (or whatever) group, that doesn't make you some sort of "lemming," no matter what your pals on Fox News might tell you.

And again, it should not be necessary for me or anyone else to point this out. Anyone with half a brain should understand this.

Midsize Jake wrote:most of the people she was referring to were not people at all, in the sense of "We The People," but rather a collection of Russian bots, troll-farm workers, and underemployed neo-Nazis.

I'm the last person to want to tolerate neo-Nazis, but like it or not, they are people! Obviously, the bots aren't, and many of the trolls weren't in the USA but were pretending to be, which is a nasty piece of fraud.

Midsize Jake wrote:Most people here probably know how I feel about Hillary Clinton, but I'll sum up for those who don't: She should never have been nominated, but at the same time, she would have been the smartest, shrewdest, and maybe even the strongest President we've had since FDR, even with only one house of Congress under her party's control. Instead, we ended up with a baboon, and I understand that I'm being really mean to baboons when I say that.

Nah she had zero charisma. I think a lot of people voted against her just to avoid seeing her for four years.

Midsize Jake wrote:But what people (including yourself, apparently) fail to note here is that when she used the phrase "basket of deplorables" in reference to "about half" of Trump's support base, she didn't realize that most of the people she was referring to were not people at all, in the sense of "We The People," but rather a collection of Russian bots, troll-farm workers, and underemployed neo-Nazis. At that time, it wasn't even all that clear that the term "alt-right" was basically a neo-Nazi sanitizer-label. You can certainly criticize Hillary Clinton for not knowing that, but then you'd have to similarly criticize about 98 percent of all Americans in general at that time. (I'd like to think I myself was in the other 2 percent, but I'll freely admit I had no idea how extensive the whole thing was, at least at that point.)

This whole line of attack is worthless. Almost everyone knows the internet is full of shit. Democrats trying to convince us that they lost the election because Russian bots and Facebook? Come on. Just admit you had a weak candidate and a poorly-executed campaign. And maybe your ideas and messaging are not as attractive as you think they are. (higher taxes to help the poor and save the environment. Yippee!!!! Screw you privileged racists!!!!!!)

Midsize Jake wrote:Meanwhile, voting as a bloc in defense of your interests as a racial (or gender, etc.) minority, especially an oppressed one, is practically the opposite of Nazism - which sought to define "good" Germans and "bad" Germans and find a "soution" by disenfranchising, and later murdering, the "bad" ones. And if someone says "you personally should vote with this particular racial, etc., bloc because it's in your interests to do so," that doesn't mean that person is Hitler-like, even if Hitler may have said something like that to get "pure Aryans" to vote for him. Voting in defense of your interests is just common sense, and if your interests coincide with that of an ethnic (or whatever) group, that doesn't make you some sort of "lemming," no matter what your pals on Fox News might tell you.And again, it should not be necessary for me or anyone else to point this out. Anyone with half a brain should understand this.

Want to offer to write it out in crayon?

agree to disagree but I think all those righteys are saying is that individuals should not be oversimplified or taken for granted. Something the democrats are just as guilty of as the republicans. It's almost worse when the clueless racist is pretending to want to help minorities and poor people when you know that they're rich af, live in homogenous enclaves, and would never send their kids to public school. These types of democrats will raise the sales tax, knowing it's regressive, and do it with a smile on their face and a "we know better" attitude. (to name just one issue where democrats are weak)

Since it seems apparent that nobody is actually interested in discussing the topic of this thread, and instead it is being used for yet another vacuous soapbox for U.S. political debate, I suggest it be closed.

AndyTheGrump wrote:Since it seems apparent that nobody is actually interested in discussing the topic of this thread, and instead it is being used for yet another vacuous soapbox for U.S. political debate, I suggest it be closed.

I'll close it for now and clean out the off-topic posts, then unlock if anyone wants to continue the original topic.