How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic

[Randy from Boise]

I believe Mr. Carrite actually does have a problem with people trying to seed news stories he doesn't agree with. We've seen this behavior from him before... However, this is probably due to a deep-seated distrust of the media in general, as opposed to some weird notion that jounalists must always maintain some sort of strict isolation from the public sphere when deciding what to write about. It's actually understandable, since so many media outlets these days are openly biased, at least politically - I don't think he blames the people trying to seed the stories so much as he blames the media outlets themselves for gullibility and poor fact-checking. (And to be fair, there was some poor fact-checking going on in this case, such as the initial assertion that Mr. Corbett was an admin, for example.)

They are seeding "news" (scare quotes intentional) in order to steer Wiki-politics.

First comes the Atlantic story and a couple weeks later — voilá! — a case against Eric Corbett follows... Why is EC's use of "cunt" an issue now? Hmmm? Because the ground has been prepared for it by the GGTF/GG-l Friendly Spacers...

Anybody that really knows politics knows damned well what is going on here. Eric Corbett is Public Enemy No. 1 to those people, and no tactic is out of bounds... And if they get him, they're going after Giano next, or Sitush...

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

Anybody that really knows politics knows damned well what is going on here. Eric Corbett is Public Enemy No. 1 to those people, and no tactic is out of bounds... And if they get him, they're going after Giano next, or Sitush...

Interesting problem... would you say that "those people" have had a similar victory prior to this, where a prominent member of that particular clique has been indefinitely banned (and not unblocked after a few days) on the basis of civility violations alone? Maybe they have and I just don't recall it.

I guess what I'm saying is, your position on it is "give them an inch and they'll take a mile," whereas mine (and, I assume, Mr. Slacker's) is more like "throw them a bone and see how long it satisfies them," since they've yet to be thrown one (AFAIK) prior to this point.

A very basic idea that large numbers of people don't accept (including here on this site), is that Wikipedia's failure to act on its own civility rules is actually a betrayal to those who registered accounts and became vested contributors largely because of the assurances those rules provided, most of which have turned out to be false. It's easy for you and I to scoff at this because we've always known those assurances are false, but unfortunately it seems that relatively few people in the "real world" do extensive reading of Wikipediocracy threads and blog posts prior to registering and participating on WP.

[AnimuAvatar]

My favorite journo at Slate once wrote a thing ages ago about wikipedia, which mentions Sitush. Just leaving this link here.

[Zoloft]

My favorite journo at Slate once wrote a thing ages ago about wikipedia, which mentions Sitush. Just leaving this link here.

Ha!
That article mentions more than just Sitush.
Salient early quote:

But beneath its reasonably serene surface, the website can be as ugly and bitter as 4chan and as mind-numbingly bureaucratic as a Kafka story. And it can be particularly unwelcoming to women.

Money quote:

In the end, the only woman in the argument, pro-GGTF libertarian feminist Carol Moore, was indefinitely banned from all of Wikipedia over her uncivil comments toward a group of male editors, whom she at one point dubbed “the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions.” Two of her chief antagonists in that group got comparative slaps on the wrist. One was the productive but notoriously hostile Eric “Fuck Wikipedia” Corbett, who has a milelong track record of incivility, had declared the task force a feminist “crusade ... to alienate every male editor,” and called Moore “nothing but a pain in the arse,” among less printable comments; he was handed a seemingly redundant “prohibition” on abusive language. The other editor was Sitush, who repeatedly criticized Moore for being “obsessed with an anti-male agenda” and then decided to research and write a Wikipedia biography of her; he walked away with a mere “warning.”

RfB, who planted that article?

[slacker]

Well, to give Carrite credit, he knows what he thinks is going on, and he's not going to stop anything ridiculous like facts or reasoning get in the way of that.

[Poetlister]

A very basic idea that large numbers of people don't accept (including here on this site), is that Wikipedia's failure to act on its own civility rules is actually a betrayal to those who registered accounts and became vested contributors largely because of the assurances those rules provided, most of which have turned out to be false. It's easy for you and I to scoff at this because we've always known those assurances are false, but unfortunately it seems that relatively few people in the "real world" do extensive reading of Wikipediocracy threads and blog posts prior to registering and participating on WP.

It would help if the civility rules were better drafted, so that they didn't allow people who know the rules to use them as an effective way of getting rid of opponents. I expect most people here have read Surgipedia.

[slacker]

This is hilarious. Consider this:

Personally as a woman I'd feel more comfortable editing here if I knew people weren't talking behind my back! Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Now, I hear you ask, what triggered that female administrator to say that? Well, this time it wasn't a male editor, it was another female, Gandydancer. Proof that the Atlantic has it all wrong, and female Wikipedia editors can be just as bad to editors of their own gender as male Wikipedians are to females? Well, not really. First, while Gandydancer is female and claims to be a feminist, she completely disavowed the GGTF once she learned they were going to be promoting civility as a way to attract more women, because she absolutely loves Eric Corbett. She is undoubtedly one of these 50% women he claims to work well with. Make of that what you will as to whether or not articles like this Atlantic one are a bunch of hooey. Now, the reason Valfontis' back was up because Gandydancer had just happened on the whole controversy mentioned here viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7004 which saw Valfontis block a teacher. That led Gandydancer to rush to prominent GGTF admin SlimVirgin to say this:

Slim, I just happened quite by accident to note the block of the teacher who was teaching her kids about reliability problems with Wikipedia. Has this place gone nuts, or what? I have long said that a better percentage of women editors would change the way this place is "run" and that affair is a good example. The whole thing is like an old Andy Griffith comedy episode where Andy is out of town and Barney is running the sheriff's office and Aunt Bea is the only one around that has a lick of sense. With you as Aunt Bea. Maybe it's just me, but I can't believe that we'd see this sort of foolishness going on if we had more women here. Well, less of it anyway. We must be the laughing stock of that school

She later struck it once Valfontis pointed out she was female (a fact clearly displayed on their user page) but the damage was done. All in all, a hilarious example that you don't have to be male to make female Wikipedians feel unwelcome, you just have to share the same outlook as Eric Corbett and think that being respectful comes a distant second to caring about Wikipedia's end product (in the year leading up to the GGTF case, incidents of LB and other 'radical feminist' editors being talked about behind their backs on Corbett and his associates talk pages were rife, and indeed the mere fact that LB once went to Eric's page to complain, was used against her in the case evidence!). It's also hilarious because of all the people claiming it's the GGTF crowd on Wikipedia who are being political - this post to SlimVirgin was Gandydancer's attempt to convince her and the rest of the GGTF that there is a way to close the gap without thinking at all about Eric Corbett.

[Moral Hazard]

[WTN]

I believe Mr. Carrite actually does have a problem with people trying to seed news stories he doesn't agree with. We've seen this behavior from him before... However, this is probably due to a deep-seated distrust of the media in general, as opposed to some weird notion that jounalists must always maintain some sort of strict isolation from the public sphere when deciding what to write about. It's actually understandable, since so many media outlets these days are openly biased, at least politically - I don't think he blames the people trying to seed the stories so much as he blames the media outlets themselves for gullibility and poor fact-checking. (And to be fair, there was some poor fact-checking going on in this case, such as the initial assertion that Mr. Corbett was an admin, for example.)

They are seeding "news" (scare quotes intentional) in order to steer Wiki-politics.

First comes the Atlantic story and a couple weeks later — voilá! — a case against Eric Corbett follows... Why is EC's use of "cunt" an issue now? Hmmm? Because the ground has been prepared for it by the GGTF/GG-l Friendly Spacers...

It's a conspiracy. Targeted individuals should wear tin foil hats. What could possibly be worse than having GGTF friendly spaces?

[ats]

(And to be fair, there was some poor fact-checking going on in this case, such as the initial assertion that Mr. Corbett was an admin, for example.)

I'd assert that believing that fact checking actually happens in modern news media, in general, is a fallacy. Most news organizations no longer even have fact checking departments and most stories are put together and reported far too quickly these days to allow a fact checking department (even if it existed) enough time to actually fact check the content. Fact checking departments were mostly lost as part of budget cutting at news organizations along with reduced time allowances caused by the 24h news cycle. At best, stories are checked for things that could result in legal liabilities to the publisher, but that doesn't mean they are checked for facts but rather phrasing (blank did blank -> blank allegedly did blank).

[Midsize Jake]

I'd assert that believing that fact checking actually happens in modern news media, in general, is a fallacy. Most news organizations no longer even have fact checking departments and most stories are put together and reported far too quickly these days to allow a fact checking department (even if it existed) enough time to actually fact check the content...

Okay, but if we assume no fact-checking occurred at all in this case, doesn't that suggest that the story is less likely to have been "seeded" by a Wikipedian, given that most Wikipedians involved with these issues would have known that Mr. Corbett was not and has never been an admin?

To me it seems more likely that the story was filtered through something like Twitter, where facts get lost all the time due to the 140-character limit, and then someone with ties to both the feminist community and The Atlantic (but not so much Wikipedia) took it from there. Lots of people probably tweeted about it, right?

[slacker]

According to Bishonen on Giano's talk page:

....I've been credibly informed the WMF did complain to the Atlantic; did not promote that article; and as far as anybody knows, nobody there encouraged anyone to talk to the press.

No idea if this is true or not, but obviously since Bishonen said it, it obviously must be, for the purposes of the anti-WMF anti-GGTF pro-Eric conspiracy nuts. What say you Carrite, as their chief representative on here?

Of course, she might just be making it up, in an attempt to get her long time friend Giano to perform a volte-face for having, as she rather ridiculously put it, let his "sense of pattern and parallelism run away with" [him], to save him from serious sanctions.

Still, either way, the fact she's not escalated the addition of Giano as a party to DRAMACON 1, and is merely restricting herself to generic silliness, says something about Giano's waning influence.

[Randy from Boise]

No idea if this is true or not, but obviously since Bishonen said it, it obviously must be, for the purposes of the anti-WMF anti-GGTF pro-Eric conspiracy nuts. What say you Carrite, as their chief representative on here?

[AnimuAvatar]

For the sake of argument, can't one be both anti-GGTF and anti-eric?
Or even better, anti-care_about_both_parties?

[Randy from Boise]

For the sake of argument, can't one be both anti-GGTF and anti-eric?
Or even better, anti-care_about_both_parties?

Stop being so sensible... Everybody knows that Eric Corbett is The Locus of Misogynist Evil on Earth or Wikipedia Jesus Born to Lead the Worthy, one of those.

You're messing with Bernstein, Gamaliel & Co.'s New Anti-Gamergate Crusade Game muddying the water like that...

RfB

[Tokenevil]

90% of people on Wikipedia are assholes, their level of assholery is proportional to the power given to them by the current political climate.

Like bureaucracies, I suppose. Wait, WP:BURO, I should stop saying that.

[slacker]

For the sake of argument, can't one be both anti-GGTF and anti-eric?
Or even better, anti-care_about_both_parties?

I don't understand your second line, but on the first - if you ever run into anyone who claims to both support Eric and the goals of the GGTF, I'll show you how they're either deliberately lying to make it appear like they're not diametric opposites, or have not actually understood either what the GGTF wants (it's not merely more articles about women) or have not understood the true nature of Eric (e.g. they seem to think he's just a grump).

[AnimuAvatar]

I don't understand your second line, but on the first - if you ever run into anyone who claims to both support Eric and the goals of the GGTF, I'll show you how they're either deliberately lying to make it appear like they're not diametric opposites, or have not actually understood either what the GGTF wants (it's not merely more articles about women) or have not understood the true nature of Eric (e.g. they seem to think he's just a grump).

The second one is basically "I am against ever acknowledging either party in any way, shape, or form. Caring about them detracts from my editing of Pineapple (T-H-L)."

[slacker]

I don't understand your second line, but on the first - if you ever run into anyone who claims to both support Eric and the goals of the GGTF, I'll show you how they're either deliberately lying to make it appear like they're not diametric opposites, or have not actually understood either what the GGTF wants (it's not merely more articles about women) or have not understood the true nature of Eric (e.g. they seem to think he's just a grump).

The second one is basically "I am against ever acknowledging either party in any way, shape, or form. Caring about them detracts from my editing of Pineapple (T-H-L)."

Well, they sound like the sort of idiot who says they don't care about politics, only to moan about issues in their daily lives that are influenced by politicians. The same thing is true of Wikipedia. It didn't take me long to find an edit even to Pineapple that was made by a user who I dimly remember saying something stupid in support of Eric's outlook on Wikipedia in some long distant drama episode. No doubt they hold those same opinions when editting articles as mundane as Pineapple. Eric is the symbol of a faction, and Wikipedia isn't big enough that you can escape all of the factions all of the time.

[Randy from Boise]

For the sake of argument, can't one be both anti-GGTF and anti-eric?
Or even better, anti-care_about_both_parties?

I don't understand your second line, but on the first - if you ever run into anyone who claims to both support Eric and the goals of the GGTF, I'll show you how they're either deliberately lying to make it appear like they're not diametric opposites, or have not actually understood either what the GGTF wants (it's not merely more articles about women) or have not understood the true nature of Eric (e.g. they seem to think he's just a grump).

The way you phrase it is nonsensical — Corbett is not pro-gender gap or pro-imbalance in subjects covered by WP, he simply feels that (a) the magnitude of the gender gap is significantly overstated (which is true); and (b) the gender of the content writer is more or less insignificant, the content is the important thing. The latter is a reasonable perspective, albeit arguable.

If you'd stop conflating Civility Enforcement/Friendly Space with the gender issue for a change, what you write above would at least have some merit. Civility Enforcement and Eric Corbett's behavior are frequently set in polar opposition. Nevertheless, you're the one that obfuscated (once again) here. Try saying what you mean...

RfB

[slacker]

Newsflash Carrite, the gender gap and Civility Enforcement are linked issues. I know you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists dispute that, but if we want to talk about established facts, that is one. Indeed, Eric only got interested in the gender issue after he found out they were linked, since that told him that any movement to act on one was likely to impact him personally, as he is the personification of the breakdown of the other. And his understanding of the gender issue is not as settled or simple as you make out - he has taken a variety of positions, many of which have even been contradictory. The only constant has been his desire to debunk whoever it was he was arguing against at the time. He has no real view on it, other than the fact those who do must be wrong, because he's not remotely interested in it as a topic of debate/study/research. Because he was not sufficiently well informed and was most certainly not debating the issue in good faith, he quickly turned to his patented style of personalised abuse, which earned him his topic ban. This is all public record Carrite, unlike your conspiracy theories.

[Vigilant]

90% of people on Wikipedia are assholes, their level of assholery is proportional to the power given to them by the current political climate.

Like bureaucracies, I suppose. Wait, WP:BURO, I should stop saying that.

90% of wikipediots on the drama boards.

Wikipedia is likable an iceberg, you never see most of it.

[Randy from Boise]

Newsflash Carrite, the gender gap and Civility Enforcement are linked issues. I know you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists dispute that, but if we want to talk about established facts, that is one. Indeed, Eric only got interested in the gender issue after he found out they were linked, since that told him that any movement to act on one was likely to impact him personally, as he is the personification of the breakdown of the other. And his understanding of the gender issue is not as settled or simple as you make out - he has taken a variety of positions, many of which have even been contradictory. The only constant has been his desire to debunk whoever it was he was arguing against at the time. He has no real view on it, other than the fact those who do must be wrong, because he's not remotely interested in it as a topic of debate/study/research. Because he was not sufficiently well informed and was most certainly not debating the issue in good faith, he quickly turned to his patented style of personalised abuse, which earned him his topic ban. This is all public record Carrite, unlike your conspiracy theories.

Why don't you just run along now to one of your private mailing lists where you can plot the takeover of the universe with the rest of the Friendly Space cabal? Your yammering is very tiresome.

RfB

[Starke Hathaway]

Newsflash Carrite, the gender gap and Civility Enforcement are linked issues. I know you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists dispute that, but if we want to talk about established facts, that is one. Indeed, Eric only got interested in the gender issue after he found out they were linked, since that told him that any movement to act on one was likely to impact him personally, as he is the personification of the breakdown of the other. And his understanding of the gender issue is not as settled or simple as you make out - he has taken a variety of positions, many of which have even been contradictory. The only constant has been his desire to debunk whoever it was he was arguing against at the time. He has no real view on it, other than the fact those who do must be wrong, because he's not remotely interested in it as a topic of debate/study/research. Because he was not sufficiently well informed and was most certainly not debating the issue in good faith, he quickly turned to his patented style of personalised abuse, which earned him his topic ban. This is all public record Carrite, unlike your conspiracy theories.

Christ, man, dial it back a little. You're reaching MMAR-like levels of shrillness.

[SB_Johnny]

Christ, man, dial it back a little. You're reaching MMAR-like levels of shrillness.

That's seriously insulting to MMAR.

[John Cook]

First comes the Atlantic story and a couple weeks later — voilá! — a case against Eric Corbett follows... Why is EC's use of "cunt" an issue now? Hmmm? Because the ground has been prepared for it by the GGTF/GG-l Friendly Spacers...

Don't forget the latest ''The Signpost'' Op-ed entitled "It’s time to stop the bullying" focusing on ''The Atlantic" article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 0-28/Op-ed

[AnimuAvatar]

Well, they sound like the sort of idiot who says they don't care about politics, only to moan about issues in their daily lives that are influenced by politicians. The same thing is true of Wikipedia. It didn't take me long to find an edit even to Pineapple that was made by a user who I dimly remember saying something stupid in support of Eric's outlook on Wikipedia in some long distant drama episode. No doubt they hold those same opinions when editting articles as mundane as Pineapple. Eric is the symbol of a faction, and Wikipedia isn't big enough that you can escape all of the factions all of the time.

Yes but did they bring up any gender-related stuff whilst editing Pineapple (T-H-L)?
For that is the quintessential question.

[Randy from Boise]

RfB, who planted that article?

Not Lightbreather and not GW... It is somebody who is (a) paranoid and (b) Eric obsessed and (c) technically adept in covering tracks.

Short list, doesn't take a rocket scientist.

RfB

[Poetlister]

90% of people on Wikipedia are assholes, their level of assholery is proportional to the power given to them by the current political climate.

Like bureaucracies, I suppose. Wait, WP:BURO, I should stop saying that.

Maybe 90% of the people who get pilloried here are, but the great majority of Wikipedia editors are quite harmless; some are even nice. Don't forget that for example our own Zoloft is on Wikipedia.

[Zoloft]

90% of people on Wikipedia are assholes, their level of assholery is proportional to the power given to them by the current political climate.

Like bureaucracies, I suppose. Wait, WP:BURO, I should stop saying that.

Maybe 90% of the people who get pilloried here are, but the great majority of Wikipedia editors are quite harmless; some are even nice. Don't forget that for example our own Zoloft is on Wikipedia.

And even editing at a low level.

[slacker]

Well, they sound like the sort of idiot who says they don't care about politics, only to moan about issues in their daily lives that are influenced by politicians. The same thing is true of Wikipedia. It didn't take me long to find an edit even to Pineapple that was made by a user who I dimly remember saying something stupid in support of Eric's outlook on Wikipedia in some long distant drama episode. No doubt they hold those same opinions when editting articles as mundane as Pineapple. Eric is the symbol of a faction, and Wikipedia isn't big enough that you can escape all of the factions all of the time.

Yes but did they bring up any gender-related stuff whilst editing Pineapple (T-H-L)?
For that is the quintessential question.

The anti-GGTF people bring up the gap in all sorts of places that have nothing to do with it, usually in the form of sarcastic sniping, or in Wikipedia speak, WP:POINT making. It actually confuses the hell out of a lot of normal editors caught in the crossfire, since they understandably had no idea there was anything controversial about raising the tone of Wikipedia so that more women editors might feel welcome to add their Pineapple specific knowledge. It happens here too, when for example, Carrite dives into a thread that has nothing to do with the issue, just to mouth off about the Friendly Spacers/Identity Warriors. He really does seem to think that not only is there a conspiracy, but that they've reached Illuminati levels of influence, with tentacles that reach into every part of Wikipedia and the WMF.

[AnimuAvatar]

words

You didn't answer my question though. It's a simple y/n question.

----[Edit]----
Also, are you implying that I'm somehow not a "normal" editor? I find that rather insulting of you, considering I'm not neurotypical.

[slacker]

words

You didn't answer my question though. It's a simple y/n question.

Is that you Eric?