How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic

[Parabola]

Obvious GGTF/GG-l/Friendly Space trolls are obvious.

Funny that neither one of them has mentioned linkviewtopic.php?f=6&t=6965&p=157591#p157555[/link]

Why?

They don't give a flying fuck about solving the Gender Gap. It's all Gamergate-style MMORP, baby!!!

RfB

Hootin and hollerin at the WMF is fine and dandy, but like many problems, there's lots of facets! Like no shit, they should spend money on studying the gender gap, and different women's projects on wikipedia are ALREADY focusing on promoting and creating women's content. You know that right? Or are you too obsessed with tracking the movements and emails of your ~enemies in the GGTF~ that you're not actually aware of the positive work actually going on?

Also note that when Vigilant makes the comparisons to MMORPGs, he's making cogent and concise examples. When you just ape the style without matching the substance, you try to type the acronym and forget the single word that makes the metaphor work: game.

Tighten up your rhetoric, or it can give you a certain unfashionable look.

[Oblia]

You "don't care", but you "regularly monitor" their mailing list? What?

I don't care about her.

Doesn't care? He's infatuated with her.

Also, I checked the gendergap-l archive. She hasn't posted there since July 1.

[sparkzilla]

They don't give a flying fuck about solving the Gender Gap.

That's a lie.

It doesn't matter if they care or not. They are not in the position to be able to fix it, because the problem is created at in the wiki itself, and who is going to change that? Everything at the higher level is just window dressing.

[iii]

Feminism has two conflicting principles that it spouts out at need
1) There are no differences between men and women
2) The differences between men and women are places that men are wrong and need to change

Neither of those are "principles of feminism" (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway... as though there is some great grand list of principles).

[JapaneseForeigner]

Feminism has two conflicting principles that it spouts out at need
1) There are no differences between men and women
2) The differences between men and women are places that men are wrong and need to change

Neither of those are "principles of feminism" (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway... as though there is some great grand list of principles).

It is my opinion that a very great deal of arguments made by or on behalf of feminists boil down to one of those two arguments in the end.

[iii]

Feminism has two conflicting principles that it spouts out at need
1) There are no differences between men and women
2) The differences between men and women are places that men are wrong and need to change

Neither of those are "principles of feminism" (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway... as though there is some great grand list of principles).

It is my opinion that a very great deal of arguments made by or on behalf of feminists boil down to one of those two arguments in the end.

You should spend some time actually engaging with arguments made by or on behalf of feminists, then, because what you are spouting are gross caricatures of actual arguments. Some might even call them straw effigies.

[JapaneseForeigner]

You should spend some time actually engaging with arguments made by or on behalf of feminists, then, because what you are spouting are gross caricatures of actual arguments. Some might even call them straw effigies.

As the bald man from France who speaks with an English accent says : Engage.

[iii]

You should spend some time actually engaging with arguments made by or on behalf of feminists, then, because what you are spouting are gross caricatures of actual arguments. Some might even call them straw effigies.

As the bald man from France who speaks with an English accent says : Engage.

I believe, if you would like to do that here, you probably want to start a thread in the Off-Topic section.

[AnimuAvatar]

Thanks for elaborating but you missed the question. Which gender-gap solutions were seriously proposed and which of those were "crazy"?

I proposed a solution here. I don't know how to crosspost on a forum (it probably isn't >>>/n/157473), but here's a direct link. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6975#p157473
Remove gender (and possibly more) from the equation. IDpolitics are a cancer. The longer it's allowed to exist on wikipedia, the worse it will get. People will become more entrenched in their opinions, continue fortifying their respective hugboxes on all sides of the debate, waste more time on stupidity, and basically solve nothing ever.

This is essentially akin to saying "Everyone pretend to be men." Male is the default. A lot of the problems here come from an inability, or more likely a refusal, for the men involved to accept that other perspectives exist that they cannot know the entirety of, and that are wildly different from their own.

This idea is perfect in a vacuum, but unfortunately we as a species are too ingrained for it to be at all practical.

My solution isn't supposed to fix a problem on perspectives (I don't see how systemd or something needs "diverse" perspectives). My solution is to fix the problem of the identity war within wikipedia. When nobody has an identity, nobody can play the identity card. It would be purely about conduct.

[iii]

When nobody has an identity, nobody can play the identity card. It would be purely about conduct.

Have you thought this through at all? Banning the identification of gender would mean, for example, that no one would be allowed to use gendered pronouns. Are you really going to ban people for that?

[Randy from Boise]

Also, I checked the gendergap-l archive. She hasn't posted there since July 1.

So what's your point?

RfB

[Cla68]

Feminism has two conflicting principles that it spouts out at need
1) There are no differences between men and women
2) The differences between men and women are places that men are wrong and need to change

Neither of those are "principles of feminism" (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway... as though there is some great grand list of principles).

It is my opinion that a very great deal of arguments made by or on behalf of feminists boil down to one of those two arguments in the end.

You should spend some time actually engaging with arguments made by or on behalf of feminists, then, because what you are spouting are gross caricatures of actual arguments. Some might even call them straw effigies.

If we want to debate feminism we probably should do it in its own thread.

[Starke Hathaway]

Well, I hope this article, and Gamaliel's hilarious posturing in the comments of it, represents the end of Gamaliel's pretense of being "uninvolved" in gender-related controversies like Gamergate.

[Oblia]

Also, I checked the gendergap-l archive. She hasn't posted there since July 1.

So what's your point?

Whether you meant to or not, it sounded like you're following gendergap-l at least in part for her posts:

I haven't followed any post-retirement comment that wasn't made by [LB] to her cheering fans on WMF's Gender Gap-list, which I monitor regularly to better Mind the Gender Gap Task Force. I simply don't care.

[Randy from Boise]

Also, I checked the gendergap-l archive. She hasn't posted there since July 1.

So what's your point?

Whether you meant to or not, it sounded like you're following gendergap-l at least in part for her posts:

I haven't followed any post-retirement comment that wasn't made by [LB] to her cheering fans on WMF's Gender Gap-list, which I monitor regularly to better Mind the Gender Gap Task Force. I simply don't care.

Nah, mostly KG and CM and N on there...

RfB

[JapaneseForeigner]

Didn't know if this belonged in the LB thread, or here, but I'm putting it here since the Atlantic article seems to be the proximate cause.

User_talk:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch (T-H-L) has been restored per REFUND requested by Staszek_Lem (T-C-L). To my recollection he wasn't involved in any of the prior cases/projects/disputes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =687696345

Seems like a weird thing to ressurect, just noticed it float by my watchlist this morning in the Deletion Log

[Jim]

Didn't know if this belonged in the LB thread, or here, but I'm putting it here since the Atlantic article seems to be the proximate cause.

User_talk:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch (T-H-L) has been restored per REFUND requested by Staszek_Lem (T-C-L). To my recollection he wasn't involved in any of the prior cases/projects/disputes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =687696345

Seems like a weird thing to ressurect, just noticed it float by my watchlist this morning in the Deletion Log

It does seem odd. Perhaps he was reading a discussion that redlinked it, and just thought "there's no reason I shouldn't be able to see that"?

He did it just after editing the Criticism of Wikipedia article's "Gender bias" section, and he's been discussing an addition by Cla68 on the talk page.

[slacker]

Well, I laughed.

Wikipédia hostile to Women (T-C-L)

This user made precisely one post, to the Main Page talk page in the section "Gender bias on main page content". The section was started by another new user, a women, who started it to complain (politely and in great detail) about the fact that, taken as a whole, the content on display the Main Page yesterday was a veritable sausage-fest. To which conversation, "Wikipédia hostile to Women" later added:

Wikipedia is anti women and it is run by people who are anti women.

For this, they were indefinitely "hard" (oo-er) blocked by the admin who has apparently left the project out of despair at the controversy over Eric being outed in this Atlantic piece as someone who is quite comfortable using the c-word toward a female editor talking about the absence of a civility reporting board.

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

Not only does the bit in bold make no sense at all, I guess it never occurred to this admin that this user might not just have been a troll account created off the back of this Atlantic piece, it might instead have been a female intending to participate in Wikipedia to help fix its sexism problem. I guess we shall never know now......

Another admin also had a similar failure to 'Assume Good Faith", and removed "Wikipédia hostile to Women"'s post an hour later for the curious reason "Invalid use of an alternate account per WP:SOCK)". diff.

So, to review, a new user, who is possibly a troll but also could have been a good faith user intending to help with the gender gap off the back of this Atlantic piece, was both blocked by an admin who loves Eric, and had their post removed by another admin who has the very Eric-like attitude to the gender gap - 'shut up and FIX IT yourself if you're really that bothered'.

Honestly, they really don't help themselves do they?

[Vigilant]

With the unicode character in the name... more than likely a troll.

[Randy from Boise]

If we want to debate feminism we probably should do it in its own thread.

Well, that went well, didn't it, you patriarchal mansplaining fatphobe...

(Actually, that was a really terrible first post. I tried to save you from crashing into that telephone pole, but somebody should have hidden your keys...)

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Didn't know if this belonged in the LB thread, or here, but I'm putting it here since the Atlantic article seems to be the proximate cause.

User_talk:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch (T-H-L) has been restored per REFUND requested by Staszek_Lem (T-C-L). To my recollection he wasn't involved in any of the prior cases/projects/disputes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =687696345

Seems like a weird thing to ressurect, just noticed it float by my watchlist this morning in the Deletion Log

The rehabilitation campaign is in full swing...

RfB

[Poetlister]

With the unicode character in the name... more than likely a troll.

It couldn't be Fæ, could it?

[Vigilant]

With the unicode character in the name... more than likely a troll.

It couldn't be Fæ, could it?

It doesn't seem his style, but I'd accept a new Sith apprentice if it were him.

[Vigilant]

Looks like Slimvirgin is on the hunt for why Lightbreather got banned and Scalhotrod did not.
This development should terrify those on ARBCOM who lobbied against doing anything.

Doug Weller, I think we should be told which functionaries felt the evidence strong enough, and which not. That there was no consensus suggests that some did feel it was strong enough, and certainly the evidence I saw was strong. It has left me not knowing who among the functionaries can be trusted. There is another issue that I intended to bring to one of them, and now I have no idea who among them I might approach with it. So it has been damaging.

Had the porn thing been a one-off, posted on that site in a moment of frustration, I would not have expected a ban. I understand that people make mistakes in the heat of the moment. But there are several factors that made this more serious. It was part of a year-long campaign of harassment pursued by that person openly on Wikipedia, but often done in quite subtle ways (e.g. by being nice at times, so that insisting on "no contact" made Lightbreather appear irrational and graceless). Lightbreather repeatedly tried to get help from uninvolved admins and (as I recall) ArbCom. Those efforts were then used as evidence of her battleground mentality during the case; and she was banned, in part, for having taken those efforts to another site. That is manifestly unfair, when the editor who caused much of it faced no sanction.

We had a similar situation in the GGTF case, where a woman who was being pursued was banned and the men in pursuit were not. For all these reasons, the whole situation really ought to be re-examined by people not involved in the original decisions. Sarah (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Y'all gonna get strangled in your sleep.

Edit:
Yeah, this is going to turn into a thing.

Fluffernutter, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Andreas, WereSpielChequers, Thryduulf, MarkBernstein, I could not see the hole in the evidence. Had I seen a hole, I would have understood why some people wanted to err on the side of extreme caution, but I could not find one.

Something that concerned me is that Mike V, a functionary, proposed on the workshop on 25 May that LB be sanctioned (and initially he wanted her banned) for posting information about that person off-wiki, according to evidence he submitted privately to the committee. [1][2] But, apart from anything else, that person's real name was already known to people off-wiki. My memory is that LB requested off-wiki help in connecting the porn-site username to the Wikipedia username, because she wasn't getting help on Wikipedia.

Was MikeV one of the functionaries who evaluated the evidence? If so, was it appropriate that someone investigating qua functionary raised the issue publicly on the workshop qua ordinary editor and sought to have LB (but not the harasser) sanctioned? I tried to start a discussion about this, [3] but Mike didn't want to say more, [4] and Lightbreather asked me to drop it, [5][6] so I did. [7]

The worry is that some of those who examined the evidence didn't like Lightbreather because they don't like feminism. (In fairness, I have no idea whether that applies to Mike.) It means non-functionaries are left wondering whether the evidence was evaluated fairly. Can we find a way to have it re-examined by a different group? Sarah (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's weird being on the same side as Slimmy

[Randy from Boise]

Yeah, this is going to turn into a thing.

Fluffernutter, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Andreas, WereSpielChequers, Thryduulf, MarkBernstein, I could not see the hole in the evidence. Had I seen a hole, I would have understood why some people wanted to err on the side of extreme caution, but I could not find one.

Something that concerned me is that Mike V, a functionary, proposed on the workshop on 25 May that LB be sanctioned (and initially he wanted her banned) for posting information about that person off-wiki, according to evidence he submitted privately to the committee. [1][2] But, apart from anything else, that person's real name was already known to people off-wiki. My memory is that LB requested off-wiki help in connecting the porn-site username to the Wikipedia username, because she wasn't getting help on Wikipedia.

Was MikeV one of the functionaries who evaluated the evidence? If so, was it appropriate that someone investigating qua functionary raised the issue publicly on the workshop qua ordinary editor and sought to have LB (but not the harasser) sanctioned? I tried to start a discussion about this, [3] but Mike didn't want to say more, [4] and Lightbreather asked me to drop it, [5][6] so I did. [7]

The worry is that some of those who examined the evidence didn't like Lightbreather because they don't like feminism. (In fairness, I have no idea whether that applies to Mike.) It means non-functionaries are left wondering whether the evidence was evaluated fairly. Can we find a way to have it re-examined by a different group? Sarah (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's weird being on the same side as Slimmy

I'll tell you what's weird — Andreas and Cirt are on the same team during the Eric Corbett Memorial Circus and Public Execution.

RfB

[greybeard]

Looks like Slimvirgin is on the hunt for why Lightbreather got banned and Scalhotrod did not.
This development should terrify those on ARBCOM who lobbied against doing anything. ...
Yeah, this is going to turn into a thing.

Without being able to really defend the feeling, I don't think so. Slim's powers have diminished substantially in the last years, as she's kept her head low. She doesn't have nearly as many friends in high places as she did 5+ years ago. I don't think this will go anywhere.

It's weird being on the same side as Slimmy

If anything, it's evidence of how much farther off the rails WP has gone. Of course, I can say that I predicted this outcome to her years ago, but that and four bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.

[Vigilant]

Looks like Slimvirgin is on the hunt for why Lightbreather got banned and Scalhotrod did not.
This development should terrify those on ARBCOM who lobbied against doing anything. ...
Yeah, this is going to turn into a thing.

Without being able to really defend the feeling, I don't think so. Slim's powers have diminished substantially in the last years, as she's kept her head low. She doesn't have nearly as many friends in high places as she did 5+ years ago. I don't think this will go anywhere.

I understand where you're coming from, but given how horribly unpopular ARBCOM is, I can't help but think she's gonna get a scalp or two.

It's weird being on the same side as Slimmy

If anything, it's evidence of how much farther off the rails WP has become. Of course, I can say that I predicted this outcome to her years ago, but that and four bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.

If you're inside the WMF watching the flagship project go over the falls, what do you do?

[Randy from Boise]

Hey Greybeard, I forgot to thank you for the bus treadmarks on my forehead that you gave me yesterday...

The departure of Andreas Kolbe (HRIP7/Jayen466) from Wikipediocracy’s admin corps seems to have signaled a sea change in Wikipediocracy’s treatment (or perhaps mistreatment) of women. Not surprisingly, it was long-time misogynist and creep Tim Davenport who lead the charge against safe spaces. Davenport, aka Randy from Boise, aka Carrite, was last seen around women’s projects when he was ejected from the gender gap mailing list after making snide remarks about safe space policies there. But Davenport is no longer alone; at Wikipediocracy he has backup from such stanch moral allies as Eric Corbett, who opined about a photo, “At least they’ve got the gender balance right there though, two women and one man. Even better if they’d managed to get rid of the man I suppose.” Because, you know, expecting men not to make rape threats and death threats is just the same as getting rid of them altogether.

So what else is Davenport up to these days? Oh, a little paid editing, from Upwork, formerly oDesk, the same outfit that Sarah Striech was working with when she got such grief from the WMF over it. So how do men like Tim Davenport and Morning 277 of Wiki-PR openly do paid editing when women can’t get away with it? I’ll leave that as an exercise in deduction for the reader.

Tim/Randy doesn’t represent all of Wikipediocracy membership. There is a spirited discussion going on, and many believe that WPO is a place where women can confront these issues in active discussion, and in a way they cannot on Wikipedia. I don’t like what he has to say, but (within the limits of the site’s terms of service, and of common decency), he has a right to say it. You have a right of reply — I hope you use it.

Thanks, buddy!

RfB

[greybeard]

Hey Greybeard, I forgot to thank you for the bus treadmarks on my forehead that you gave me yesterday... Thanks, buddy!

No problem, though as you'd be the first to point out, you don't really need my help.

[slacker]

Tim/Randy doesn’t represent all of Wikipediocracy membership. There is a spirited discussion going on, and many believe that WPO is a place where women can confront these issues in active discussion, and in a way they cannot on Wikipedia. I don’t like what he has to say, but (within the limits of the site’s terms of service, and of common decency), he has a right to say it. You have a right of reply — I hope you use it.

Not even 10% I'd say - I think he probably has more popular support for his views on Wikipedia than here. Although he is taking up rather a lot of the bandwidth here on this particular issue - you can't move in here for his uses of "Friendly Space" this and "Identity Politics" that in disparaging ways. And while everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone else has the right to reply, within the established parameters, at some point it just becomes tedious and repetitive, and certainly when the level of tone deafness reaches a certain point, as I've seen occur these past few days in his interactions with others of a different viewpoint, it arguably becomes a violation of common decency.

[Oblia]

Tim/Randy doesn’t represent all of Wikipediocracy membership. There is a spirited discussion going on, and many believe that WPO is a place where women can confront these issues in active discussion, and in a way they cannot on Wikipedia. I don’t like what he has to say, but (within the limits of the site’s terms of service, and of common decency), he has a right to say it. You have a right of reply — I hope you use it.

Not even 10% I'd say - I think he probably has more popular support for his views on Wikipedia than here. Although he is taking up rather a lot of the bandwidth here on this particular issue - you can't move in here for his uses of "Friendly Space" this and "Identity Politics" that in disparaging ways. And while everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone else has the right to reply, within the established parameters, at some point it just becomes tedious and repetitive, and certainly when the level of tone deafness reaches a certain point, as I've seen occur these past few days in his interactions with others of a different viewpoint, it arguably becomes a violation of common decency.

[Randy from Boise]

The only person who ever claimed I "represent Wikipediocracy" is Carol Moore or the Carol Moore epigone who wrote the attack page on me. It's quite an ignorant assertion, but all's fair in politics and online role-playing games...

Last I checked, I was a Wikipedian — not a popular tribe in these parts.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Tim/Randy doesn’t represent all of Wikipediocracy membership. There is a spirited discussion going on, and many believe that WPO is a place where women can confront these issues in active discussion, and in a way they cannot on Wikipedia. I don’t like what he has to say, but (within the limits of the site’s terms of service, and of common decency), he has a right to say it. You have a right of reply — I hope you use it.

Not even 10% I'd say.... and so on.

Of course, you'd have used 5,000 words and mentioned Eric Corbett 15 more times...

RfB

[slacker]

The only person who ever claimed I "represent Wikipediocracy" is Carol Moore or the Carol Moore epigone who wrote the attack page on me. It's quite an ignorant assertion, but all's fair in politics and online role-playing games...

Last I checked, I was a Wikipedian — not a popular tribe in these parts.

RfB

Really? I've yet to see an active Wikipedian who is also a member here getting a hard time, or at the very least, a harder time than a non-Wikipedian. A lot of smack is talked about those who are not here, sure, but that's to be expected given the basic purpose of the site. I don't know whether it's your natural hubris or what, but you and a couple of others who are not admins/owners do seem quite comfortable acting like you're part of the furniture here, seemingly feeling entitled to do things that most people would easily recognise (assuming they're up to speed on the subject) as exactly the sort of thing that turns women off of online communities. And while it is obviously not true that you represent Wikipediocracy, and everyone's opinion here is their own, it's not exactly an unfair characterisation either, given the relative dominance of your opinions here (I'm talking frequency of course, not power/persuasiveness).

[Parabola]

It's a Suffering Tax. The more notable people who still put in time editing lash out at people who haven't "put the time in", even while some of them lean into the 'hasten the day' stuff. It's a pretty big bummer, really.

[Randy from Boise]

Really? I've yet to see an active Wikipedian who is also a member here getting a hard time, or at the very least, a harder time than a non-Wikipedian...

Call me the Rosa Parks of Wikipediocracy.

Doesn't mean I'm invited to Sunday dinner...

RfB

[HRIP7]

I'll tell you what's weird — Andreas and Cirt are on the same team during the Eric Corbett Memorial Circus and Public Execution.

I don't know what Cirt's view of Eric Corbett is, but I am pretty sure I have typed more words trying to explain UK usage of the c-word, and how it differs from US usage, and more words defending Eric Corbett against the charge of misogyny, than most people.

Eric may have blind spots with regard to the gender gap and often come across as remarkably grumpy and argumentative, but that's rather different in my book from being a misogynist.

[Randy from Boise]

I'll tell you what's weird — Andreas and Cirt are on the same team during the Eric Corbett Memorial Circus and Public Execution.

I don't know what Cirt's view of Eric Corbett is, but I am pretty sure I have typed more words trying to explain UK usage of the c-word, and how it differs from US usage, and more words defending Eric Corbett against the charge of misogyny, than most people.

Eric may have blind spots with regard to the gender gap and often come across as remarkably grumpy and argumentative, but that's rather different in my book from being a misogynist.

That would be true.

It is also a perspective that will be held to be completely irrelevant and completely drowned out during the spectacle...

RfB

[Oblia]

I'll tell you what's weird — Andreas and Cirt are on the same team during the Eric Corbett Memorial Circus and Public Execution.

I don't know what Cirt's view of Eric Corbett is, but I am pretty sure I have typed more words trying to explain UK usage of the c-word, and how it differs from US usage, and more words defending Eric Corbett against the charge of misogyny, than most people.

Eric may have blind spots with regard to the gender gap and often come across as remarkably grumpy and argumentative, but that's rather different in my book from being a misogynist.

That would be true.

It is also a perspective that will be held to be completely irrelevant and completely drowned out during the spectacle...

RfB

Eric and his "friends" use the word "misogyny" much more often than Eric's critics do. It's part of E & Co's way of trying to make the other side look extreme.

Edit: Added "much".

[Parabola]

See: every time Eric and Blofeld mope at the camera on their own talkpages about how "Well, I guess im just the BIGGEST MISOGYNIST BULLY NOW......siGH" like it's a goddang livejournal.

[slacker]

I'll tell you what's weird — Andreas and Cirt are on the same team during the Eric Corbett Memorial Circus and Public Execution.

I don't know what Cirt's view of Eric Corbett is, but I am pretty sure I have typed more words trying to explain UK usage of the c-word, and how it differs from US usage, and more words defending Eric Corbett against the charge of misogyny, than most people.

Eric may have blind spots with regard to the gender gap and often come across as remarkably grumpy and argumentative, but that's rather different in my book from being a misogynist.

That would be true.

It is also a perspective that will be held to be completely irrelevant and completely drowned out during the spectacle...

RfB

Deservedly so, since the scarce validity of those early days arguments have eroded over time as it has become clear what Eric does and doesn't know but what he still says/does regardless. Also, the myth that he is only ever grumpy, rather than nasty and extremely personal, has also eroded with experience.

[Zoloft]

I will attest to Wikipedia bigwigs and ARBCOM members catching a lot of flak here. Much of it is glancing attacks rather than theme topics.

[Cla68]

Follow up article in Verily magazine.

[Randy from Boise]

I will attest to Wikipedia bigwigs and ARBCOM members catching a lot of flak here. Much of it is glancing attacks rather than theme topics.

A couple of the really hard punchers are gone.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Follow up article in Verily magazine.

A better treatment than the Atlantic piece.

Correct that anonymity looms large, both on the part of men (boys?) behaving rottenly and on the part of ArbCom's ludicrous contention that Outing is a capital offense while authentic sexual harassment has to be proven to the point of 99.9993% certainty...

RfB

[JapaneseForeigner]

Follow up article in Verily magazine.

LB is rapidly approaching GNG

[Zoloft]

Follow up article in Verily magazine.

LB is rapidly approaching GNG

Don't wish that on anyone.

[The Adversary]

And some South Korean site here:
http://www.thecatcher.co.kr/news/articl ... dxno=15628

...do we have any lurking Korean speakers here?

[Zoloft]

And some South Korean site here:
http://www.thecatcher.co.kr/news/articl ... dxno=15628

...do we have any lurking Korean speakers here?

Machine-translated version

Edit: ...which is actually hilariously awful.

[Cedric]

And some South Korean site here:
http://www.thecatcher.co.kr/news/articl ... dxno=15628

...do we have any lurking Korean speakers here?

Machine-translated version

Edit: ...which is actually hilariously awful.

Gotta love that headline:

How did you Wikipedia a "sexist" cattle production