Wikipediocracy

gamergate.wikia.com was founded by Snowfox413. Snowfox413 is also a contributor to the "Prison Planet Intelligence Agency Wiki". "Prison Planet" is a website operated by Alex Jones, the infamous conspiracy theorist.

Snowfox413's first contribution to the Prison Planet wiki was its "Alleged Muslim Brotherhood influence operations" article, which Snowfox413 copied from an old version of Wikipedia's "Muslim Brotherhood activities in the United States" article (an article that was deleted in July 2012).

In other words, Jimbo helped draw attention to a wiki operated by an anti-Islam conspiracy theorist associated with Alex Jones.

Sending the gamergate people to a site run by a conspiracy theorist? Sounds like a perfect fit to me. First person to post the 7 degrees between Anna and Osama bin land wins an iPad.

Oh, I forgot to add, Snowfox413 is trying to dig dirt on Wikipedians.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Oh, I forgot to add, Snowfox413 is trying to dig dirt on Wikipedians.

I guess everyone has some redeeming feature or other.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Oh, I forgot to add, Snowfox413 is trying to dig dirt on Wikipedians.

That is incredibly pathetic. He literally doesn't know what he's doing, except for his obsessed focus on anyone who might support Zoe Quinn or "cause problems" for Tutelary and TD and company. We have far more information on all these WP insiders, but there's no way I'm going to help this little shit with his "campaign".

EricBarbour wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Oh, I forgot to add, Snowfox413 is trying to dig dirt on Wikipedians.

That is incredibly pathetic. He literally doesn't know what he's doing, except for his obsessed focus on anyone who might support Zoe Quinn or "cause problems" for Tutelary and TD and company. We have far more information on all these WP insiders, but there's no way I'm going to help this little shit with his "campaign".

I never suggested helping him. I simply stated an observation. Personally, I would like to undermine him, but the pseudonym "Snowfox413" isn't much to go on. The "Prison Planet" / Alex Jones connection was the only thing of value that I could find.

EricBarbour wrote:

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Oh, I forgot to add, Snowfox413 is trying to dig dirt on Wikipedians.

That is incredibly pathetic. He literally doesn't know what he's doing, except for his obsessed focus on anyone who might support Zoe Quinn or "cause problems" for Tutelary and TD and company. We have far more information on all these WP insiders, but there's no way I'm going to help this little shit with his "campaign".

We're a Chinese spy ring?

http://gamergate.wikia.com/wiki/Wikiped ... e_spy_ring

The only Chinese I know is "Kung Hei Fat Choi." I learned that from Pinky and the Brain (T-H-L).

The wonderful Tutelary has shown their womanly credentials by being one of those fighting to stop the opening sentence of Ched Evans (T-H-L) mentioning that the convicted rapist is a convicted rapist. Instead it states that he is a footballer even though he is not currently employed as one and has not been since becoming a convicted rapist.

In the charming manner so beloved of Gamergaters and their fellow travellers, Evans victim has been outed against the law in Britain which grants rape victims anonymity. She was given a new identity which has been outed again. Meanwhile Jessica Ennis has told Evans's erstwhile employers that they can un-name the stand they named after her should they take him back. Evans's fans have now tweeted how they hope that he rapes Ennis. Is it a surprise that Wikipedia's most infamous female (yes, sure) supporter of Gamergate should be siding with the rape gang?

Are you seriously trying to argue that Chedwyn Michael "Ched" Evans (born 28 December 1988) is a Welsh convicted rapist. is an encyclopedia opening sentence for a biography? Rolf Harris (T-H-L) is a convicted child sex offender and clearly no longer an "entertainer", do you propose the same sort of change to his article? Are the people who object to such an opening to be seen as pro-pedophilia?

Sidereal wrote:Are you seriously trying to argue that Chedwyn Michael "Ched" Evans (born 28 December 1988) is a Welsh convicted rapist. is an encyclopedia opening sentence for a biography? Rolf Harris (T-H-L) is a convicted child sex offender and clearly no longer an "entertainer", do you propose the same sort of change to his article? Are the people who object to such an opening to be seen as pro-pedophilia?

More importantly, the editor removed all mention of his career as a footballer from the lede, which is the only reason anyone outside the family and friends of the parties concerned cares about his conviction.

Sidereal wrote:Are you seriously trying to argue that Chedwyn Michael "Ched" Evans (born 28 December 1988) is a Welsh convicted rapist. is an encyclopedia opening sentence for a biography?

What about "Peter William Sutcliffe (born 2 June 1946) is a British serial killer who was dubbed "The Yorkshire Ripper" by the press"? I for one had never heard of Ched Evans as a footballer. Then again, as a rapist he is probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

The difference between Sutcliffe and Evans/Harris is blindingly obvious -Sutcliffe isn't known for anything else but being a killer.

Evans was a notable footballer, which of course doesn't mean he was a famous footballer. He's only a notable rapist now because when he raped he was a notable footballer. That's still no kind of argument for putting rapist in the opening sentence, especially if it doesn't explain why he's notable as a rapist, since 99.9999% of people who rape don't get an article.

Arguably he's not notable now for just being a rapist footballer (there's plenty of those), he's notable for causing controversy for having the gall to be a rapist footballer who dares to protest his innocence and argue for his right to return to work at the level he was previously at, having served his time under the law of the land. That's what really should be in the first paragraph, adjusted for NPOV. I've never personally understood why people treat lead sections as if they need to be in strict chronological order.

And on a purely technical note, if he's still registered with the FA, as I would imagine he is if he's training and seeking a club, then he's still technically a professional footballer, present tense, whether he has a club or not.

Sidereal wrote:... since 99.9999% of people who rape don't get an article.

Not a statistician or mathematician, but I believe you may have used too many nines to the right of the decimal point.

Zoloft wrote:

Sidereal wrote:... since 99.9999% of people who rape don't get an article.

Not a statistician or mathematician, but I believe you may have used too many nines to the right of the decimal point.

Zoloft is probably correct; the proportion of rapists with articles must be more than one in a million.

Poetlister wrote:Zoloft is probably correct; the proportion of rapists with articles must be more than one in a million.

Globally? I'd take the "under".

Poetlister wrote:

Zoloft wrote:

Sidereal wrote:... since 99.9999% of people who rape don't get an article.

Not a statistician or mathematician, but I believe you may have used too many nines to the right of the decimal point.

Zoloft is probably correct; the proportion of rapists with articles must be more than one in a million.

What percentage of people have Wikipedia articles? The number of rape survivors is notably higher than the number of rapists, as it's often the same people targeting multiple others. The figure itself is something like 4-5% of the US population. I have no idea if 'notable' people are more likely to be sexual predators, that's an entirely different question.

I imagine most rapists don't have Wikipedia articles, the project itself is pretty Western (or more specifically American) focused and rape is even more frequent in the developing world than it is in America.

thekohser wrote:

Poetlister wrote:Zoloft is probably correct; the proportion of rapists with articles must be more than one in a million.

Globally? I'd take the "under".

Sorry to be unclear. I meant that unless the proportion is more than one in a million, you can't talk about 99.9999%.