Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Wikipedia in the news - rip and read.
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
kołdry
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:40 am

Well, I have no means to verify the claim, but Qworty does say he or she has been receiving death threats and other hostility of that sort. Not to mention you have this Eddievega (T-C-L) person, possibly an associate of Filipacchi's from Columbia University, who sort of faded out of view with all the Nayman stuff going on, but was dogging Qworty something serious in the time immediately prior to that blow-up.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by lilburne » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:50 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:Well, I have no means to verify the claim, but Qworty does say he or she has been receiving death threats and other hostility of that sort. Not to mention you have this Eddievega (T-C-L) person, possibly an associate of Filipacchi's from Columbia University, who sort of faded out of view with all the Nayman stuff going on, but was dogging Qworty something serious in the time immediately prior to that blow-up.
Have you not understood yet that most of what it said on wikipedia is bollocks, and that it isn't limited to what you read in the articles.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:54 am

Vigilant wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin#Done
When SlimVirgin is the voice of reason in the room, you KNOW you are insane.
SlimVirgin is totally sane. That's one of the reasons she's more dangerous than the psychotics on the site.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:53 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:Not to mention you have this Eddievega (T-C-L) person, possibly an associate of Filipacchi's from Columbia University[.]
Oh, Mr. Vega started out his career on Wikipedia by pumping up an article on an obscure two-issue magazine flop called Murdaland (T-H-L) (promoting his own editorship and pretending not to know that it folded almost immediately) and then doing nothing at all until the present flap.

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:02 pm

And the think about Salon's involvement in this is that their participation is strictly yellow journalism. Nobody who ever actually paid attention to Wikipedia editing (and especially JPL's category wonkery) can serious think this has anything to do with some deep sexism pervading the Wikipedia community, as if it even functions communally. Anyone can foresee that eventually the forces of political correctness will prevail and the women will be restored to larger "American novelists" category while somehow retaining some categorical indication that they are special people. Wikiproject Conservatism is only interested in money, and they're the only group that would ever put up a fight against the default slacker upper-middle ethos of the place. No, the Salon people are in it simply for the drama: they're stirring up trouble in order to attract traffic to their site.

User avatar
Tippi Hadron
Queen
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:15 am
Wikipedia User: DracoEssentialis
Actual Name: Monika Nathalie Collida Kolbe

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Tippi Hadron » Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:15 pm

Ming wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:Not to mention you have this Eddievega (T-C-L) person, possibly an associate of Filipacchi's from Columbia University[.]
Oh, Mr. Vega started out his career on Wikipedia by pumping up an article on an obscure two-issue magazine flop called Murdaland (T-H-L) (promoting his own editorship and pretending not to know that it folded almost immediately) and then doing nothing at all until the present flap.
Oh, you mean like any good writer, he wrote about what he knew? Unless you're completely devoid of empathy, you two may want to keep your assumptions to yourselves, given that Murdaland co-founder and Vega "associate" Cortright McMeel recently passed away at just 41 years of age. If this photograph of Amanda Filipacchi from Vega's flickr stream is anything to go by, Vega is a fan rather than an "associate". Surely "associates" would look at their fellow "associates" while having their picture taken.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by DanMurphy » Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:33 pm

Tippi Hadron wrote:
Ming wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:Not to mention you have this Eddievega (T-C-L) person, possibly an associate of Filipacchi's from Columbia University[.]
Oh, Mr. Vega started out his career on Wikipedia by pumping up an article on an obscure two-issue magazine flop called Murdaland (T-H-L) (promoting his own editorship and pretending not to know that it folded almost immediately) and then doing nothing at all until the present flap.
Oh, you mean like any good writer, he wrote about what he knew? Unless you're completely devoid of empathy, you may want to keep your assumptions to yourself, given that Murdaland co-founder and Vega "associate" Cortright McMeel recently passed away at just 41 years of age. If this photograph of Amanda Filipacchi from Vega's flickr stream is anything to go by, Vega is a fan rather than an "associate". Surely "associates" would look at their fellow "associates" while having their picture taken.
Not that it matters, but I have taken hundreds of pictures of friends at dinner parties when they were not looking at me.

Whether Mr. Vega is friends with her or simply a fan doesn't make any difference anyways. We simply have another example of griefers, teen-age Adderal addicts, and crazy people getting their licks in against outsiders.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:34 pm

Useful NPR piece (love the jingle at the end of the audio version)
Kaldari says that the editor who moved the names of female writers off the page violated Wikipedia's guidelines about gender-specific pages, and that the problem is in the process of being addressed. But he also says this is not the first time Wikipedia has been accused of sexism.

"Wikipedia does have problems with sexism because, as a lot of people know, only about 10 percent or less of the editors at Wikipedia are women," Kaldari says. "And so a lot of times there's this subconscious, white, male, privileged sexism that exists on Wikipedia that isn't really acknowledged."

Kaldari says he is surprised that this particular issue attracted so much attention.
It's been a wake-up call alright.

Now there are a few worthy voices saying, "Wikipedia is sexist, that's why women have to join in and help out."

Of course it would be nice if Wikipedia's demographics were better (the UNU survey found Wikipedia demographics to be 87% male, 67% single, 85% childless; median age 22, mode (most common age) 18, arithmetic mean 25).

But there is something slightly odd about that logic, and I see no sign that Filipacchi e.g. is subscribing to it. She just slammed Wikipedia, rather than joining it and having herself kicked in the shins by the anonymous pond life on-wiki. She is right.

It's a bit like saying, "There is crime in the Mafia if you don't show up. You have to join it and work for it for free, for a long time, to slowly make it better."

It's blackmail.

"Work for us for free, in an unpleasant environment that we have allowed to develop through our management style, or else."

Isn't it?

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:50 pm

Tippi Hadron wrote:Oh, you mean like any good writer, he wrote about what he knew?
Well, he knew he needed a little self-promotion, like any professional writer.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:02 pm

Ming wrote:And the think about Salon's involvement in this is that their participation is strictly yellow journalism. Nobody who ever actually paid attention to Wikipedia editing (and especially JPL's category wonkery) can serious think this has anything to do with some deep sexism pervading the Wikipedia community, as if it even functions communally. Anyone can foresee that eventually the forces of political correctness will prevail and the women will be restored to larger "American novelists" category while somehow retaining some categorical indication that they are special people. Wikiproject Conservatism is only interested in money, and they're the only group that would ever put up a fight against the default slacker upper-middle ethos of the place. No, the Salon people are in it simply for the drama: they're stirring up trouble in order to attract traffic to their site.
I've heard that same tag of "yellow journalism" applied to some of my writing about Wikipedia, on Examiner. Even if this particular case is not all as bad as Salon makes it out to be, at this point, I don't care -- I side with Salon and not with Wikipedia. Wikipedians have such an ignoble track record of bashing critics and labeling them "trolls", denying criticism, hiding evidence of their own wrongdoing, and gathering up as much money as possible to pad their own staffing empires, I've simply resigned myself to never believing anything they say is "unfair criticism" any more. Sorry, but they had over six years to win my trust, but they trampled that at every turn.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Tippi Hadron
Queen
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:15 am
Wikipedia User: DracoEssentialis
Actual Name: Monika Nathalie Collida Kolbe

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Tippi Hadron » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:05 pm

Ming wrote:
Tippi Hadron wrote:Oh, you mean like any good writer, he wrote about what he knew?
Well, he knew he needed a little self-promotion, like any professional writer.
Or maybe he just cared about his friend and didn't know about WP's COI policy. You could always invite Mr Vega over and give him a chance to talk about his side of the story.

User avatar
Sweet Revenge
Gregarious
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Sweet Revenge » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:26 pm

thekohser wrote:
Ming wrote:And the think about Salon's involvement in this is that their participation is strictly yellow journalism. Nobody who ever actually paid attention to Wikipedia editing (and especially JPL's category wonkery) can serious think this has anything to do with some deep sexism pervading the Wikipedia community, as if it even functions communally. Anyone can foresee that eventually the forces of political correctness will prevail and the women will be restored to larger "American novelists" category while somehow retaining some categorical indication that they are special people. Wikiproject Conservatism is only interested in money, and they're the only group that would ever put up a fight against the default slacker upper-middle ethos of the place. No, the Salon people are in it simply for the drama: they're stirring up trouble in order to attract traffic to their site.
I've heard that same tag of "yellow journalism" applied to some of my writing about Wikipedia, on Examiner. Even if this particular case is not all as bad as Salon makes it out to be, at this point, I don't care -- I side with Salon and not with Wikipedia. Wikipedians have such an ignoble track record of bashing critics and labeling them "trolls", denying criticism, hiding evidence of their own wrongdoing, and gathering up as much money as possible to pad their own staffing empires, I've simply resigned myself to never believing anything they say is "unfair criticism" any more. Sorry, but they had over six years to win my trust, but they trampled that at every turn.
Greg, we agree! "stirring up trouble to attract traffic" doesn't make it yellow journalism. What Salon wrote is true, and Qworty and friends condemn themselves and disgrace WP with their own words. Ming doesn't think WP is sexist because they say they're not sexist, even though their actions and decisions add up to sexist results. This can happen despite their stated intentions. Salon's (unstated) intentions may well be to stir up trouble, and all journalism is intended to earn money. That doesn't mean that the trouble isn't there to be stirred up and it doesn't invalidate the results of the journalism. All criticism of a public (in the technical sense used in the phrase "public figure") institution like WP is fair criticism.

One thing that really bothers me about the response of those who've drunk the WP kool aid is the claim that outsiders just don't understand. If the point of the encyclopedia is to bring knowledge to the world, it should be written in a way so that the world understands it. If the public has to undergo successful indoctrination into bubbling and diffusing of categories in order not to be shocked, that is WP's problem, not the public's.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:32 pm

Related blog post here.
Amanda Filipacchi’s New York Times article about Wikipedia’s ghettoization of female novelists finally shone the spotlight on some of the rampant sexism that pervades almost every corner of the online “encyclopaedia”.
(There is also a thread to discuss the blog post itself, here.)

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:39 pm

Sweet Revenge wrote: One thing that really bothers me about the response of those who've drunk the WP kool aid is the claim that outsiders just don't understand. If the point of the encyclopedia is to bring knowledge to the world, it should be written in a way so that the world understands it. If the public has to undergo successful indoctrination into bubbling and diffusing of categories in order not to be shocked, that is WP's problem, not the public's.
That response is very typical of Wikipedians, and it is very 1960s. Up until those days it was okay for companies to say that the customers were wrong when they found fault with the product, or that they just didn't understand how the product worked.

That approach is sustainable only as long as you have the market cornered. As soon as you don't, your company goes the way of the dodo.

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:05 pm

thekohser wrote:I've heard that same tag of "yellow journalism" applied to some of my writing about Wikipedia, on Examiner. Even if this particular case is not all as bad as Salon makes it out to be, at this point, I don't care -- I side with Salon and not with Wikipedia. Wikipedians have such an ignoble track record of bashing critics and labeling them "trolls", denying criticism, hiding evidence of their own wrongdoing, and gathering up as much money as possible to pad their own staffing empires, I've simply resigned myself to never believing anything they say is "unfair criticism" any more. Sorry, but they had over six years to win my trust, but they trampled that at every turn.
Greg, I take everything you say about Wikipedia at a certain discount because of your history with them and vice versa. It doesn't mean I have no respect for your analysis, but you cannot plausibly pretend to disinterest.

My perspective on this comes from (a) trying to think about this as if it were approached entirely rationally, and (b) having a teen age daughter. In a rational world, someone would have said, "gee, some dumbkopf took all the women out of the American novelists category, which makes it look like there aren't any female American novelists." And other rational people would have said, "oh yeah, that looks bad; we have to fix it somehow" and would have worked out some systematic fix to the problem. OK, well, we know that Wikipedia isn't that rational world, and we know that it's bad that it isn't. But the other side of the coin is that the world isn't that rational world either. You don't get your story on NPR by pointing out that someone did something dumb in a part of Wikipedia that outsiders don't look at all that much anyway; you get attention by pushing the accepted narrative that it's all about the Sexism that Pervades American Life and by going all Katie Kaboom over it. There's not really that much of a gap between the in-Wikipedia drama over dealing with the issue, and the out-of-Wikipedia drumming of outrage in the first place.

User avatar
Sweet Revenge
Gregarious
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Sweet Revenge » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:52 pm

newyorkbrad woodsheds Qworty
At this point, I have little hesitation in concluding that you should not be editing these articles or their talkpages. Please give this some thought and let me know whether you will voluntarily agree to stay away from these pages or whether I should post a formal notice that you are restricted from these articles as a BLP special enforcement action. If you do insist that I proceed with a formal restriction before you will stop editing these pages, I will do so. You would have the right to appeal any such restriction, either on the Administrators' Noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee. (I would of course recuse as an arbitrator from any appeal concerning one of my own administrator actions.) However, you would be required not to edit the pages until such appeal is resolved.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:55 pm

Sweet Revenge wrote:newyorkbrad woodsheds Qworty
At this point, I have little hesitation in concluding that you should not be editing these articles or their talkpages. Please give this some thought and let me know whether you will voluntarily agree to stay away from these pages or whether I should post a formal notice that you are restricted from these articles as a BLP special enforcement action. If you do insist that I proceed with a formal restriction before you will stop editing these pages, I will do so. You would have the right to appeal any such restriction, either on the Administrators' Noticeboard or to the Arbitration Committee. (I would of course recuse as an arbitrator from any appeal concerning one of my own administrator actions.) However, you would be required not to edit the pages until such appeal is resolved.
It's a fairly polite but stern note for the level of slander she's committed.

It's starting to permeate the blogosphere
http://signoffsandiego.blogspot.com/201 ... rding.html
Last edited by Vigilant on Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:59 pm

Ming wrote:OK, well, we know that Wikipedia isn't that rational world, and we know that it's bad that it isn't. But the other side of the coin is that the world isn't that rational world either.
And that attitude is precisely the problem, isn't it? Instead of raising the rationality-standard of the most-used general reference work to be above that of the mass of people, you're essentially saying it's acceptable to lower it to that level and keep it there. It's not. That's the whole point.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:08 pm

Tippi Hadron wrote:If this photograph of Amanda Filipacchi from Vega's flickr stream is anything to go by, Vega is a fan rather than an "associate". Surely "associates" would look at their fellow "associates" while having their picture taken.
That is actually a picture of someone else.
Sweet Revenge wrote:One thing that really bothers me about the response of those who've drunk the WP kool aid is the claim that outsiders just don't understand. If the point of the encyclopedia is to bring knowledge to the world, it should be written in a way so that the world understands it. If the public has to undergo successful indoctrination into bubbling and diffusing of categories in order not to be shocked, that is WP's problem, not the public's.
I personally have always preferred that people get themselves sufficiently informed about a subject before they comment about it. Also, the notion that every process should be simple enough that one doesn't need much informing to understand it is absurd and at odds with reality. You can't apply that sort of thinking on any wide basis. That type of intellectual laziness tends to get us in a whole mess of trouble.
Last edited by The Devil's Advocate on Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:27 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Ming wrote:OK, well, we know that Wikipedia isn't that rational world, and we know that it's bad that it isn't. But the other side of the coin is that the world isn't that rational world either.
And that attitude is precisely the problem, isn't it? Instead of raising the rationality-standard of the most-used general reference work to be above that of the mass of people, you're essentially saying it's acceptable to lower it to that level and keep it there. It's not. That's the whole point.
If you think that's what I'm saying, then you need to adjust your reading comprehension. Look, I have nothing positive to say about how Wikipedia is dealing with this. But the issue has always, from the very start, been wrapped up in the very dynamics under which Filipacchi authorized herself to raise a stink about the sexism of the place. The tendency in every Wikipedia criticism venue I've ever come across is to attribute all sorts of motivations to bad in-Wiki behavior while acting as if external critics had no such motivations themselves. In this case it isn't so. There's nothing wrong with her pointing out the lapse, but she's engaging in her own drama-raising in making sure the media keep the incident on the screen.

User avatar
greybeard
Habitué
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:21 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by greybeard » Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:50 pm

Ming wrote:There's nothing wrong with [Filipacchi] pointing out the lapse [i.e. Wikipedia's blatant sexism], but she's engaging in her own drama-raising in making sure the media keep the incident on the screen.
And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:56 pm

Newyorkbrad takes others to the woodshed:

Brad spanks BWilkins
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552904738
== User NaymanNoland ==

Hi. You reviewed and declined a block review request by this editor. As I've just explained to the blocking administrator (Toddst1), I am not convinced this was a good block based on edit-warring, nor am I convinced that it was warranted for personal attacks as you state in your rationale for declining the block review. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith, albeit with some intemperate language, in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Wikipedia by Amanda Filipacchi. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, Sondra Peterson. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. Moreover, it was Qworty who used genuinely extreme language in his talkpage posts concerning, among others, a BLP subject (some of these posts have since been removed at SlimVirgin's request), which is the backdrop against which NaymanNoland's comments must be read. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Summarizing, "You sided with that fruitbat Qworty?! GTFO!"
BWilkins is pretending that he can't hear daddy screaming.

Toddst1 tastes the strap
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552832715
== User:NaymanNoland ==
Hi, Toddst1. I am taking a look at your block of this user for edit-warring and I am not convinced it was a good block. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Wikipedia by [[Amanda Filipacchi]]. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, [[Sondra Peterson]]. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Todd has a sad that he can't show his epeen
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552911214
You may be right. I was looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552830875 this edit] in particular. I'll unblock. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Go out and play, Todd.

Todd has to shame himself
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552905762
After discussing the matter with NYB, I've unblocked this editor. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552830875 Reposting others' personal attacks] is not necessarily constructive, but it isn't the worst thing that has happened around this complex fiasco. Reducing block to existing time. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussing? Is that what we were doing? Really? Discussing?

<Snip misattributed link as part of the flow, sorry.>
If you listen closely, you can hear the high pitched screeching of the beta males as the alpha strolls on by.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:43 pm

Ming wrote:...and would have worked out some systematic fix to the problem.
That made me laugh. Like how Pending Changes was a systematic fix to the vandalism problem?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:51 pm

thekohser wrote:
Ming wrote:...and would have worked out some systematic fix to the problem.
That made me laugh. Like how Pending Changes was a systematic fix to the vandalism problem?
Um, "no, not like that at all"?

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:15 pm

Ming wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Ming wrote:...and would have worked out some systematic fix to the problem.
That made me laugh. Like how Pending Changes was a systematic fix to the vandalism problem?
Um, "no, not like that at all"?
It's actually quite a lot like that; the problems themselves are different, but in both cases the solution calls for technical intervention that won't be coming any time soon, due to a hidebound, change-resistant, politically-driven "community."

If I might be allowed to excise the key bits of your earlier post, you wrote: "In a rational world ... (snip) ... rational people would have ... (snip) ... worked out some systematic fix to the problem." In fact, rational people have worked out a systematic fix to the problem, namely semantic wiki tagging, but it hasn't been implemented even though it's been around for years and the code, etc., is perfectly stable.

Bear in mind, the basic problem here is categories with too many members. You might think there's a "procedural" solution whereby the categories would be divided up and a rule would be implemented to prevent people from adding members to the category, while still allowing the addition of subcategories. That might work for a while until they decided to change it back or drop the rule. What they really need is to be able to flag the category as "semantic" (or whatever you want to call it) and have the category page itself appear as an "Advanced Search" page, so that people can check off things like "female" and "born in the 1960's" and "Canadian" or whatever, to get a smaller subset of the category.

Your real question here is why don't they have that now, given that the technology already exists? And I think you'll find that the answer is very similar to that of "why isn't 'Pending Changes' already in place?"

User avatar
Sweet Revenge
Gregarious
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Sweet Revenge » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:09 pm

Now it's in the Atlantic: Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'A Single Misguided Editor' by Amanda Filipacci, and as The Devil's Advocate notes on the talk page of our baby List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L), she quotes that article!
Soon after, that category was created. According to a Wikipedia article entitled "List of Wikipedia Controversies," "When the 'American men novelists' category was first created, its only entries were Orson Scott Card and P. D. Cacek (who is female)." The last time I looked, it seems that several Wiki editors are trying to make sure women have been put back in the main category, and they've been reverting the changes of editors who try to take them out.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:33 pm

Sweet Revenge wrote:Now it's in the Atlantic: Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'A Single Misguided Editor' by Amanda Filipacci, and as The Devil's Advocate notes on the talk page of our baby List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L), she quotes that article!
Soon after, that category was created. According to a Wikipedia article entitled "List of Wikipedia Controversies," "When the 'American men novelists' category was first created, its only entries were Orson Scott Card and P. D. Cacek (who is female)." The last time I looked, it seems that several Wiki editors are trying to make sure women have been put back in the main category, and they've been reverting the changes of editors who try to take them out.
Quotes it, links it (important, people are lazy) and engages the reader.
I think this is going to be entertaining for us for at least a few weeks.

From the comments
The other problem is that "women novelists" is considered a relevant category at all. Wouldn't it be much easier for users if Wikipedia categorized writers by medium, time period, literary movement, or genre? Why is the fact that these authors are women considered to be so important that it overshadows other aspects of their work?

If I'm a fan of postmodernism or science fiction, I want to see authors grouped into those categories. It's not clear for whose benefit male and female authors are grouped into different categories.
The people who contribute to Wikipedia are not average people. The people who contribute to Wikipedia are mostly young males, and many behave as thoughtless sadists. That's why to comment on what Wikipedians are saying or doing is as useless as to comment on what North Korean leaders are saying or doing. Wikipedia is the sickest and the dirtiest site on the NET. It destroys people reputations and in some instances people health and lives.
Wikipedia, when it first came out was fairly useful since for the most part it dealt with factual topics like atomic structures and where certain plants could be found. Over the past several years it reads like Orwell's 1984. Words are destroyed for offending someone, only PC points of view are approved, inconvenient facts are prohibited, biased wording is prevalent though out.
Seems like some other people have had fun on wikipedia.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Wed May 01, 2013 1:06 am

Midsize Jake wrote:Your real question here is why don't they have that now, given that the technology already exists? And I think you'll find that the answer is very similar to that of "why isn't 'Pending Changes' already in place?"
I don't know about that. Pending changes is yet another retreat from "... that everyone can edit," so it's unsurprising that there's a lot of resistance to it simply on principle. I don't see anyone defending the current category mechanisms on principle.

User avatar
Tippi Hadron
Queen
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:15 am
Wikipedia User: DracoEssentialis
Actual Name: Monika Nathalie Collida Kolbe

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Tippi Hadron » Wed May 01, 2013 3:58 am

Tippi Hadron wrote:
Ming wrote:
Tippi Hadron wrote:Oh, you mean like any good writer, he wrote about what he knew?
Well, he knew he needed a little self-promotion, like any professional writer.
Or maybe he just cared about his friend and didn't know about WP's COI policy. You could always invite Mr Vega over and give him a chance to talk about his side of the story.
I ended up sending Eddie Vega an email, and here's what he wrote back (quoted with his permission):
Hi Tippi,

Thanks for the heads up about the ongoing discussion. I read through the comments and found some of them mean spirited and misinformed. For example, the claim that I have a photo of Amanda Filipacchi in my Flickr photostream is just not true. I have zero photos of her. The photo linked to is of a woman with her boyfriend at a fundraiser for a theatrical production. The woman is not Amanda Filipacchi. And had no relationship to her or to her companion other than to snap their picture. As for Amanda, she was one of several hundred students at the Columbia Graduate School of Arts at the time I was there studying poetry, 1991-1993. I have not seen or spoken to her in 20 years. As for Murdaland, I helped edit some stories for the first issue and so knew something about it, but was never an owner and my involvement was over before the first issue was even published. That enterprise was really the work of Michael Langnas and Cort McMeel. Cort’s recent death has been devastating to many of us who knew him. He left behind a wife, two small children, and two parents.

I read your article yesterday about Wikipedia’s culture of sexism, by the way, and thought it was excellent and deeply insightful. I agree with all of your points. I don’t know though that I want to get involved in the dispute on this forum, though. I’d be at a distinct disadvantage since I do not believe in anonymous posts and the flamers are anonymous. And given the troll-like behavior of some of these folks, it’s best I kept my distance.

Thanks again!

Eddie

Cla68
Habitué
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:43 pm
Wikipedia User: Cla68

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Cla68 » Wed May 01, 2013 5:16 am

That's funny that when editors tried to mitigate the damage that Qworty was doing, they ended up getting blocked. You can't make this stuff up.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Wed May 01, 2013 6:08 am

Cla68 wrote:That's funny that when editors tried to mitigate the damage that Qworty was doing, they ended up getting blocked. You can't make this stuff up.
The editor who got blocked was one of the ones who was primarily focused on hounding Qworty. Plenty of other editors went in after the deletions to fix up the various articles and didn't get any negative attention.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Wed May 01, 2013 6:13 am

Ming wrote:Pending changes is yet another retreat from "... that everyone can edit," so it's unsurprising that there's a lot of resistance to it simply on principle.
The principle you're referring to is, essentially, "instant gratification is good," which on Wikipedia outweighs the principle that "people and organizations should not have to constantly worry about being anonymously libeled and misrepresented on the web page that ranks #1 on Google for their name." Pending changes wouldn't have prevented people from editing; it would merely have led to delayed gratification in some cases, so of course it was completely unacceptable to Wikipedians. You might as well have asked them to limit themselves to one account each! :shocked:
I don't see anyone defending the current category mechanisms on principle.
That's because you're not thinking in terms of the principle that's actually at work here. Semantic categorization is much more difficult to game or to use as the basis for an ideological squabble. The current setup offers all sorts of possibilities. There's definitely a principle being defended; it's just that the principle itself is not really defensible, at least outside of the internal Wikipedia context.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Poetlister » Wed May 01, 2013 12:09 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Your real question here is why don't they have that now, given that the technology already exists? And I think you'll find that the answer is very similar to that of "why isn't 'Pending Changes' already in place?"
I don't think that the answer is quite the same. Pending changes is already implemented on some WMF sites and is proven to work, at least technically. (Whether the editors who approve the changes are knowledgeable enough to know if the changes are sensible is another matter.) Thus there is no valid technical reason not to use it on WP. However, so far as I know there is no WMF site using this better category system, so they can still plead technical issues with some plausibility.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by HRIP7 » Wed May 01, 2013 12:10 pm

Blog post by Adrianne Wadewitz: Who speaks for the women of Wikipedia? Not the women of Wikipedia.
In the past few days, there has been extensive coverage of Wikipedia’s “categorygate”. In this post, I am not concerned with the details of what happened during the debate over the category “American women novelists”. Needless to say, there has been outrage over what was perceived as sexism on Wikipedia and great wringing of hands over the fact that roughly 10% of the editorbase of Wikipedia is female and thus this travesty (if that is what it was) was allowed to happen. If only there were more women on Wikipedia, the argument goes, this would not have happened.

But no one has talked to the women who actually are on Wikipedia.
She has a point. John Pack Lambert, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ryan Kaldari were quoted (by Gleick and NPR); I can't think of any female Wikipedians quoted in the press articles I have seen; not even Sarah Stierch, who has done a lot of press work.

Well, at least Wikipediocracy quoted Adrianne at length, in our blog post on the controversy.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Hex » Wed May 01, 2013 12:17 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Semantic categorization is much more difficult to game or to use as the basis for an ideological squabble. The current setup offers all sorts of possibilities. There's definitely a principle being defended; it's just that the principle itself is not really defensible, at least outside of the internal Wikipedia context.
I agree about the difficulty of gaming semantic categorization, but do you really think the current kerfuffle is gaming? I tend to work on the basis of Hanlon's razor (T-H-L).
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by lilburne » Wed May 01, 2013 12:23 pm

Hex wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote:Semantic categorization is much more difficult to game or to use as the basis for an ideological squabble. The current setup offers all sorts of possibilities. There's definitely a principle being defended; it's just that the principle itself is not really defensible, at least outside of the internal Wikipedia context.
I agree about the difficulty of gaming semantic categorization, but do you really think the current kerfuffle is gaming? I tend to work on the basis of Hanlon's razor (T-H-L).
We know that much of what happens there is TEH STOOPIDZ, it is the usual situation there, others do not, let them discover for themselves the pile of maggots that infest the place.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Wed May 01, 2013 1:15 pm

HRIP7 wrote:She has a point. John Pack Lambert, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ryan Kaldari were quoted (by Gleick and NPR); I can't think of any female Wikipedians quoted in the press articles I have seen; not even Sarah Stierch, who has done a lot of press work.
The only woman I see regularly in category discussions is BrownHairedGirl (T-C-L), who is in Ireland. SHe has been active in this discussion but is perhaps too sensible to be of interest to the press.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 01, 2013 2:42 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Cla68 wrote:That's funny that when editors tried to mitigate the damage that Qworty was doing, they ended up getting blocked. You can't make this stuff up.
The editor who got blocked was one of the ones who was primarily focused on hounding Qworty. Plenty of other editors went in after the deletions to fix up the various articles and didn't get any negative attention.
Come on TDA, you're not even trying anymore.

Would you care to go diff for diff on this subject?

I'll take NaymanNoland and you take Qworty.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by HRIP7 » Wed May 01, 2013 3:49 pm

The story has now percolated all the way to Cosmopolitan ... and to the Wikimedia Foundation blog, where Sue Gardner has penned a piece:
What’s missing from the media discussions of Wikipedia categories and sexism
Posted by Sue Gardner on May 1, 2013


Last week the New York Times published an Op-Ed from author Amanda Filipacchi headlined Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists, in which she criticized Wikipedia for moving some authors from the “American novelists” category into a sub-category called “American women novelists.” Because there is no subcategory for “American male novelists,” Filipacchi saw the change as reflecting a sexist double standard, in which ‘male’ is positioned as the ungendered norm, with ‘female’ as a variant.

I completely understand why Filipacchi was outraged. She saw herself, and Harper Lee, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Judy Blume, Louisa May Alcott, Mary Higgins Clark, and many others, seemingly downgraded in the public record and relegated to a subcategory that she assumed would get less readership than the main one. She saw this as a loss for American women novelists who might otherwise be visible when people went to Wikipedia looking for ideas about who to hire, to honor, or to read.

In the days following, other publications picked up the story, and Filipacchi wrote two followup pieces — one describing edits made to her own biography on Wikipedia following her first op-ed, and another rebutting media stories that had positioned the original categorization changes as the work of a lone editor.

For me–as a feminist Wikipedian–reading the coverage has been extremely interesting. I agree with many of the criticisms that have been raised (as I think many Wikipedians do), and yet there are important points that I think have been missing from the media discussions so far.

In Wikipedia, like any large-scale human endeavor, practice often falls short of intent.

Individuals make mistakes, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t call into question the usefulness or motivations of the endeavor as a whole. Since 2011, Wikipedia has officially discouraged the creation of gender-specific subcategories, except when gender is relevant to the category topic. (One of the authors of the guideline specifically noted that it is clear that any situation in which women get a gendered subcategory while men are left in the ungendered parent category is unacceptable.) In other words, the very situation Filipacchi decries in her op-ed has been extensively discussed and explicitly discouraged on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a continual work-in-progress. It’s never done.

In her original op-ed, Filipacchi seems to assume that Wikipedians are planning to move all the women out of the American Novelists category, leaving all the men. But that’s not the case. There’s a continuous effort on Wikipedia to refine and revise categories with large populations, and moving out the women from American Novelists would surely have been followed by moving out the satirical novelists, or the New York novelists, or the Young Adult novelists. I’d argue it’s still an inappropriate thing to do, because women are 50 percent of the population, not a variant to the male norm. Nevertheless the move needs to be understood not as an attack on women, but rather, in the context of continuous efforts to refine and revise all categories.

Wikipedia is a reflection of the society that produces it.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and as such it reflects the cultural biases and attitudes of the general society. It’s important to say that the people who write Wikipedia are a far larger and vastly more diverse group than the staff of any newsroom or library or archive, past or present. That’s why Wikipedia is bigger, more comprehensive, up-to-date and nuanced, compared with any other reference work. But with fewer than one in five contributors being female, gender is definitely Wikipedia’s weak spot, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that it would fall victim to the same gender-related errors and biases as the society that produces it.

Are there misogynists on Wikipedia? Given that anyone with internet access can edit it, and that there are roughly 80,000 active editors (those who make at least 5 edits per month on Wikimedia projects), it would be absurd to claim that Wikipedia is free of misogyny. Are there well-intentioned people on Wikipedia accidentally behaving in ways that perpetuate sexism? Of course. It would be far more surprising if Wikipedia were somehow free of sexism, rather than the reverse.

Which brings me to my final point.

It’s not always the case, but in this instance the system worked. Filipacchi saw something on Wikipedia that she thought was wrong. She drew attention to it. Now it’s being discussed and fixed. That’s how Wikipedia works.

The answer to bad speech is more speech. Many eyes make all bugs shallow. If you see something on Wikipedia that irks you, fix it. If you can’t do it yourself, the next best thing is to do what Filipacchi did — talk about it, and try to persuade other people there’s a problem. Wikipedia belongs to its readers, and it’s up to all of us to make it as good as it possibly can be.

Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 01, 2013 3:58 pm

one describing edits made to her own biography on Wikipedia following her first op-ed
I like how Sue blithely glosses over the fact that Qworty went to town with a straight razor on all articles related to the biography followed by a serious of screechy rants about entitle rich girls followed by shitting on anyone who disagreed with her.

And. Did. Not. Get. Blocked.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 01, 2013 4:16 pm

Sexism, Wikipedia and “Revenge Editing”
http://creightoninfoethics.wordpress.com/
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by thekohser » Wed May 01, 2013 5:23 pm

HRIP7 wrote:and to the Wikimedia Foundation blog, where Sue Gardner has penned a piece
Let's see if the Foundation is brave and transparent enough to post my comment on Sue's blog:
Ms. Gardner's claim that "the system worked. Filipacchi saw something on Wikipedia that she thought was wrong. She drew attention to it. Now it’s being discussed and fixed. That’s how Wikipedia works", is not apparently how the Wikimedia Foundation works. When I spotted a problem with how the 2010 Donor Survey research was awarded to a WMF staff member's former employer, without a competitive bidding process, my inquiry into this problem was first ignored, then actively silenced, then begrudgingly admitted to by the WMF director... yet no real discussion took place about how to fix that problem.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 01, 2013 6:05 pm

thekohser wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:and to the Wikimedia Foundation blog, where Sue Gardner has penned a piece
Let's see if the Foundation is brave and transparent enough to post my comment on Sue's blog:
Ms. Gardner's claim that "the system worked. Filipacchi saw something on Wikipedia that she thought was wrong. She drew attention to it. Now it’s being discussed and fixed. That’s how Wikipedia works", is not apparently how the Wikimedia Foundation works. When I spotted a problem with how the 2010 Donor Survey research was awarded to a WMF staff member's former employer, without a competitive bidding process, my inquiry into this problem was first ignored, then actively silenced, then begrudgingly admitted to by the WMF director... yet no real discussion took place about how to fix that problem.
I got mine approved!
Vigilant says:
2013/05/01 at 09:03

What’s missing?

Leadership.
I'm more famous than grey-eg!!
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by thekohser » Wed May 01, 2013 9:37 pm

thekohser wrote:Let's see if the Foundation is brave and transparent enough to post my comment on Sue's blog...
Of course, my truth is too provocative for the cowardly folks at the WMF, so with their devotion to censorship, they bask in their own hypocrisy.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
lilburne
Habitué
Posts: 4446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by lilburne » Wed May 01, 2013 10:03 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
What’s missing from the media discussions of Wikipedia categories and sexism
Posted by Sue Gardner on May 1, 2013

Wikipedia is a continual work-in-progress. It’s never done.

Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
When I look at a work I look at it as it is today, not what it might look like sometime in the future. What Sue Gardner invites us to do is not to look at the treatment of women in the Saudi Arabia today, but what the treatment might be like in 10 years time. I say Horseshit!
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 01, 2013 10:33 pm

Vigilant wrote:
thekohser wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:and to the Wikimedia Foundation blog, where Sue Gardner has penned a piece
Let's see if the Foundation is brave and transparent enough to post my comment on Sue's blog:
Ms. Gardner's claim that "the system worked. Filipacchi saw something on Wikipedia that she thought was wrong. She drew attention to it. Now it’s being discussed and fixed. That’s how Wikipedia works", is not apparently how the Wikimedia Foundation works. When I spotted a problem with how the 2010 Donor Survey research was awarded to a WMF staff member's former employer, without a competitive bidding process, my inquiry into this problem was first ignored, then actively silenced, then begrudgingly admitted to by the WMF director... yet no real discussion took place about how to fix that problem.
I got mine approved!
Vigilant says:
2013/05/01 at 09:03

What’s missing?

Leadership.
I'm more famous than grey-eg!!
I've added another comment to test the interface.
Vigilant says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
2013/05/01 at 15:30

I was talking about you and the rest of the WMF, Sue.
Reply
HAHAHAHHAHAHA!
My comment got approved!

Hey Greg,
You want me to post your comment for you? ;)

Too funny.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Hersch
Retired
Posts: 3719
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Hersch » Wed May 01, 2013 11:48 pm

Outsider wrote: Are all subcategories wrong?
Possibly. They are certainly an important arena for edit-warriors, because you is either in the category or you ain't, no NPOV applies. So if someone can get you into a pejorative category (like "Conspiracy theorists"), you are screwed.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Malcolm X


User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Thu May 02, 2013 1:01 am

Hersch wrote:
Outsider wrote: Are all subcategories wrong?
Possibly. They are certainly an important arena for edit-warriors, because you is either in the category or you ain't, no NPOV applies. So if someone can get you into a pejorative category (like "Conspiracy theorists"), you are screwed.
The established, plainly pejorative categorizations are very closely watched. If your articles is in the conspiracy theorists category, it's because you push some crackpot theory.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu May 02, 2013 1:03 am

Ming wrote:
Hersch wrote:
Outsider wrote: Are all subcategories wrong?
Possibly. They are certainly an important arena for edit-warriors, because you is either in the category or you ain't, no NPOV applies. So if someone can get you into a pejorative category (like "Conspiracy theorists"), you are screwed.
The established, plainly pejorative categorizations are very closely watched. If your articles is in the conspiracy theorists category, it's because you push some crackpot theory.
Mighty Ming, may I beg an indulgence?
Why are there plainly pejorative categorizations on wikipedia to begin with?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists

Unread post by Ming » Thu May 02, 2013 1:47 am

Vigilant wrote:
Ming wrote:
Hersch wrote:
Outsider wrote: Are all subcategories wrong?
Possibly. They are certainly an important arena for edit-warriors, because you is either in the category or you ain't, no NPOV applies. So if someone can get you into a pejorative category (like "Conspiracy theorists"), you are screwed.
The established, plainly pejorative categorizations are very closely watched. If your articles is in the conspiracy theorists category, it's because you push some crackpot theory.
Mighty Ming, may I beg an indulgence?
Why are there plainly pejorative categorizations on wikipedia to begin with?
Because people do things that are stupid and/or evil? If one accepts the notion of categorization/tagging/whatever, there are going to be people/things that get identified in ways that reflect badly on them, because they did or represent bad things.

Post Reply