Physicist embroiled in sexism row with Wikipedia

[Poetlister]

A physicist has become embroiled in a sexism row with Wikipedia after profiles she created for female scientists were removed because they were "not notable enough". Dr Jess Wade, a research associate at Imperial College London, spent two years writing around 820 biographies for the online encyclopaedia, which attracts millions of users every day. ... But last week an editor of the website flagged 50 as not being prominent enough to justify them remaining online.

Daily Telegraph

Of course, just being flagged doesn't necessarily mean that they will all be deleted, and it's 50 out of 820 articles, but it woud be interesting to see the AfDs.

[Eric Corbett]

A physicist has become embroiled in a sexism row with Wikipedia after profiles she created for female scientists were removed because they were "not notable enough". Dr Jess Wade, a research associate at Imperial College London, spent two years writing around 820 biographies for the online encyclopaedia, which attracts millions of users every day. ... But last week an editor of the website flagged 50 as not being prominent enough to justify them remaining online.

Daily Telegraph

Of course, just being flagged doesn't necessarily mean that they will all be deleted, and it's 50 out of 820 articles, but it woud be interesting to see the AfDs.

It's hardly a "sexism row", more like a notability row.

[Zoloft]

Does anyone have an idea who the editor who flagged these at not notable is?

[Midsize Jake]

Does anyone have an idea who the editor who flagged these at not notable is?

It was an AnonIP, so they ran a CheckUser on it and it came up as a match for User:KenanSulayman (T-C-L), who they then blocked. In the discussion, he asked the admins to vanish him so that he wouldn't be "described as trying to actively harm or defame women."

He doesn't look like Mr. CrowsNest to me, but of course that doesn't mean he hasn't been reading what Mr. CrowsNest has been writing on the subject.

[Poetlister]

My initial reaction is that the chap was trolling. (Incidentally, he was only blocked for 72 hours, so it has expired.) Of course, it's quite likely that among these hundreds of articles a small percentage are of genuinely non-notable people, or at least that Dr Wade failed to make a good enough case. I hope that it's not an instance of BrillLyle's claim that the notability bar is higher for women.

[Moral Hazard]

What do you call a physicist with only 4 first-authored papers who spends all her time on the Wikipedia movement and gender-equality?

[Eric Corbett]

What do you call a physicist with only 4 first-authored papers who spends all her time on the Wikipedia movement and gender-equality?

Desperate.

[Poetlister]

What do you call a physicist with only 4 first-authored papers who spends all her time on the Wikipedia movement and gender-equality?

A social justice warrior?

[BrillLyle]

Here's Jess Wade on the BBC's Woman's Hour

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000c0b8

starts around 29:30

As far as what Jess is doing with the editing, I just see danger signs at posting tweets about new pages. In my experience, being public about BLPs always put pages under undue scrutiny.

I find it frustrating that while she acknowledges there are problem editors who attack content, she doesn't seem to characterize the toxicity of the community as what needs to be fixed.

Quite frankly, I don't think this is necessarily a gender-based issue. I think it's a toxicity issue.

En Wikipedia editors who are bad actors are both male and female. Some of the worst ones I dealt with were women - CA2james and DIANNNNA (sp? don't care). I mean then there's JYTDawwwwg, and many others, so the assumed ratio of male asshats is definitely higher, but I think singling out men as being the perpetrators is obscuring the issue of the community being a nightmare, irregardless of gender.

I'm just listening to this now, but sigh....

[Giraffe Stapler]

Does anyone have an idea who the editor who flagged these at not notable is?

It was an AnonIP, so they ran a CheckUser on it and it came up as a match for User:KenanSulayman (T-C-L), who they then blocked. In the discussion, he asked the admins to vanish him so that he wouldn't be "described as trying to actively harm or defame women."

He doesn't look like Mr. CrowsNest to me, but of course that doesn't mean he hasn't been reading what Mr. CrowsNest has been writing on the subject.

I wonder if KenanSulayman could possibly be the same person as Kenan Sulayman, who runs Psychonautwiki, a drug wiki. Probably not, because that Kenan Sulayman's own site says he is a "public relations wizard".

[Eric Corbett]

Here's Jess Wade on the BBC's Woman's Hour

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000c0b8

starts around 29:30

As far as what Jess is doing with the editing, I just see danger signs at posting tweets about new pages. In my experience, being public about BLPs always put pages under undue scrutiny.

I find it frustrating that while she acknowledges there are problem editors who attack content, she doesn't seem to characterize the toxicity of the community as what needs to be fixed.

Quite frankly, I don't think this is necessarily a gender-based issue. I think it's a toxicity issue.

Agreed. But to be fair to her, it would be take a bit of courage to go on a nationally broadcast radio programme and tell the truth about what a shitty place Wikipedia really is whatever your gender.

[BrillLyle]

Probably not, because that Kenan Sulayman's own site says he is a "public relations wizard".

I'm still chuckling at this. Good one!

But really, for anyone trying to add content to Wikipedia in any meaningful way, it is like a tick tock before a toxic bad actor editor -- who probably isn't adding content, only policing or deleting content (cause that's much easier) -- attaches themselves to a prolific editor and has at it.

I know there are things that can be done to establish notability so it's as watertight as possible, but I don't think given the volume of what she's doing, Jess is probably taking the time to do that. Because it takes a huge amount of time and energy. Though some stuff, if it's in the same field, can be replicated. But still.

And then if the editor who is attacking is toxic enough, it won't matter if notability is clear. Because people sort of suck, generally. Sorry, pushing back the dark space on this because it's def triggering.

I follow Jess and every time I see her Tweet I just cringe. I also used to look at the pages, but obvs now I'm WMF-banned I can't help to do the above tightening....

[Moral Hazard]

Wikipedia policy sets high standards for academic notability (WP:Notability (academics) (T-H-L)), and most professors do not meet them. Unless they are in leading departments at top research universities, junior faculty do not meet them.

It is easier to meet notability as a public figure whose public posing has received coverage in reliable sources, regardless of whether such posing has had any plausible (useful) impact.

I usually worked on BLPs of academics who are recognized as having made world-leading contributions. I remember two mathematical scientists, who happen to be women:

• Graciela Chichilnisky (T-H-L)
• Rosemary A. Bailey (T-H-L)

I made a few edits on Susan Haack (T-H-L), who (eschewing novelties) may be the most useful philosopher of our time.

[BrillLyle]

Agreed. But to be fair to her, it would be take a bit of courage to go on a nationally broadcast radio programme and tell the truth about what a shitty place Wikipedia really is whatever your gender.

Yeah, even during the interview the host was like, Why on EARTH would anyone edit given what she's experienced. And Jess furiously backpedaled / smoothed it over. Which I don't blame her for either.... :-)

Nobody wants to hear how bad it is. No one wants to peek behind the curtains and see the Wizard, or how the food is made (can't remember saying sorry). It's too negative and toxic.

It bothered me she waxed and waned about Maher. I actually messaged her on Twitter and hopefully we might have some discussion about this.

I really wish I could help out with supporting her editing. I honestly don't think it's a bad thing what she's doing. I would like to see a caveat thrown for men to improve entries in this way, but (a) they have enough entries for eons and (b) I don't think that other editors would probably put this much effort into editing.

Because it's a passion, to see the gender gap and coverage of people of color and LGBT communities improved. I felt it for sure. It was a huge motivator.

And the fact of the matter is that having a Wikipedia entry is a hugely positive thing for most people in mid-career (or farther). I know the pages I created or improved (and I did quite a bit of editing of white men entries too) had a very good impact for people and their careers.

[Eric Corbett]

I really wish I could help out with supporting her editing. I honestly don't think it's a bad thing what she's doing. I would like to see a caveat thrown for men to improve entries in this way, but (a) they have enough entries for eons and (b) I don't think that other editors would probably put this much effort into editing.

I've never been in favour of BLPs whatever their sexuality, so I do see it as a bad thing. But I understand that YMMV.

[BrillLyle]

Wikipedia policy sets high standards for academic notability (WP:Notability (academics) (T-H-L)), and most professors do not meet them. Unless they are in leading departments at top research universities, junior faculty do not meet them.

It is easier to meet notability as a public figure whose public posing has received coverage in reliable sources, regardless of whether such posing has had any plausible (useful) impact.

I usually worked on BLPs of academics who are recognized as having made world-leading contributions. I remember two mathematical scientists, who happen to be women:

• Graciela Chichilnisky (T-H-L)
• Rosemary A. Bailey (T-H-L)

I made a few edits on Susan Haack (T-H-L), who (eschewing novelties) may be the most useful philosopher of our time.

Well done you for working on those BLPs! Much respect. BLPs are not easy.

Agree that notability standards are high. And that most professors don't meet them.

I look for male peers, who typically have pages that have very few citations, have been up for a while, and are not / have not been challenged with AfD or further scrutiny. The comparisons are disheartening. So personally I am fine with some of the notability being a touch soft. Though if I was creating or improving pages where it was a struggle to solidly establish notability, I would be a bit more conservative in how many and who I did. But def agree with the point here.

[BrillLyle]

I've never been in favour of BLPs whatever their sexuality, so I do see it as a bad thing. But I understand that YMMV.

That's interesting. I guess I'm so blinded by the power of BLPs in their Google search results I can't comprehend them being anything other than positive.

Apologies if you've explained before, but is there a reason for why you are against BLPs? And then very curious what people edit instead.... :-)

[Eric Corbett]

I've never been in favour of BLPs whatever their sexuality, so I do see it as a bad thing. But I understand that YMMV.

That's interesting. I guess I'm so blinded by the power of BLPs in their Google search results I can't comprehend them being anything other than positive.

Apologies if you've explained before, but is there a reason for why you are against BLPs? And then very curious what people edit instead.... :-)

My attitude is rather similar to that of the Chinese diplomat who, when asked what he thought about the French Revolution, replied "Too soon to tell". A bit like Justin Bieber writing his autobiography at the age of twenty if you like. And how many times do you see details of someone's supposedly current spouse or children? Is that kind of stuff ever updated? Only rarely.

Many times I've seen what would probably in time be considered minor transgressions unworthy of comment, such as shoplifting, blown out of all proportion in biographies because it's recent news. Basically I don't believe anyone's life can be assessed while they're alive.

As to what I edit instead, I tend towards women who didn't at the time or now receive the recognition they deserved, such as the Scottish poet Jean Adam, who wrote what Robert Burns called "one of the most beautiful songs in the Scots, or any other language". But not on Wikipedia of course, that would be a waste.

[Moral Hazard]

Basically I don't believe anyone's life can be assessed while they're alive.

You and Herodotus.

But until he is dead, you had better refrain from calling him happy (olbion), and just call him fortunate (eutuchea).

Carolyn Dewald (2011) Happiness in Herodotus, Symbolae Osloenses (T-H-L), 85:1, 52-73, DOI: 10.1080/00397679.2011.631357

[Eric Corbett]

Basically I don't believe anyone's life can be assessed while they're alive.

You and Herodotus.

But until he is dead, you had better refrain from calling him happy (olbion), and just call him fortunate (eutuchea).

I'm in good company then, for once.

[BrillLyle]

Basically I don't believe anyone's life can be assessed while they're alive.

Interesting.

I guess I come from the frustrated librarian perspective of discovery, so I want notable people who might be mid-career or known for something significant to be adequately reflected and visible.

If we wait for these BLPs until they are dead then we lose out. But YMMV (does)! :-)

[ArmasRebane]

Wikipedia policy sets high standards for academic notability (WP:Notability (academics) (T-H-L)), and most professors do not meet them. Unless they are in leading departments at top research universities, junior faculty do not meet them.

It is easier to meet notability as a public figure whose public posing has received coverage in reliable sources, regardless of whether such posing has had any plausible (useful) impact.

I usually worked on BLPs of academics who are recognized as having made world-leading contributions. I remember two mathematical scientists, who happen to be women:

• Graciela Chichilnisky (T-H-L)
• Rosemary A. Bailey (T-H-L)

I made a few edits on Susan Haack (T-H-L), who (eschewing novelties) may be the most useful philosopher of our time.

Well done you for working on those BLPs! Much respect. BLPs are not easy.

Agree that notability standards are high. And that most professors don't meet them.

I look for male peers, who typically have pages that have very few citations, have been up for a while, and are not / have not been challenged with AfD or further scrutiny. The comparisons are disheartening. So personally I am fine with some of the notability being a touch soft. Though if I was creating or improving pages where it was a struggle to solidly establish notability, I would be a bit more conservative in how many and who I did. But def agree with the point here.

When it comes to BLPs it seems like a good place to have more stringent notability requirements; if there's middling bios about men on there, they should probably get the axe too.

The higher standards for notability are really there because they don't get the kind of GNG coverage mainstream topics get.

[BrillLyle]

When it comes to BLPs it seems like a good place to have more stringent notability requirements; if there's middling bios about men on there, they should probably get the axe too.

Captain Obvious - Things on Wikipedia aren't fair. Or equitable.

The reality is that this parity is never going to happen. A BLP about a woman, a person of color, someone who is LGBT will get raked over the coals. If there are less than 20 citations, and if anything is not fully cited, it's AfD'd or stripped. An equivalent entry about a man can have 3 citations, be not fully cited, etc.

It's an inherent bias. It's real. So whether it's conceptually the way things should be, the reality is that the scrutiny is much harsher if its not featuring a white male. Sorry but I highly doubt any entries on men are going to be axed. Not once they're up.

The higher standards for notability are really there because they don't get the kind of GNG coverage mainstream topics get.

Please define GNG - which means General Notability Guidelines for those of us who don't ken to WIKI:Rulez. Or throw them around wily nily. You're triggering a pet peeve. Plus: This feels like mansplaining and now I feel defensive. Please don't explain why notability guidelines are there, when it's the focus of every edit I made to Wikipedia. And, I assume, anyone editing BLPs regularly is also clearly aware of this.

It seems like people start throwing around WIKI:Rulez when they want to delete content and challenge notability. But the pattern of behavior is that they (a) never attempt to truly help another editor learn how to establish notability and (b) can't be arsed to actually do a rescue and get in there and help out. I mean, that's like 99.999% of the time the pattern. So if I'm not thrilled by WIKI:Rulez, it's based on that.

I tried to help fellow editors learn, strategize, execute. So information that was added was good, solid, cited. And I would help them with the pages all the time. That's why that blog post on GenderDesk really chapped my ass. https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2019/0 ... wn-babies/ -- and yeah I appreciated the balanced responses. Thanks so much. I tried to write a response but she didn't approve it.

Not going to apologize. This shiz is salt in the wounds a bit and is v annoying.

- Erika

[Eric Corbett]

The reality is that this parity is never going to happen. A BLP about a woman, a person of color, someone who is LGBT will get raked over the coals. If there are less than 20 citations, and if anything is not fully cited, it's AfD'd or stripped. An equivalent entry about a man can have 3 citations, be not fully cited, etc.

Interesting you should say that. My impression is quite the reverse.

[Moral Hazard]

I started the article Ronald E. Powaski (T-H-L) when I saw an Oxford University Press history by him in a Stockholm bookstore and I discovered that he was teaching at a high school.

It was recently WP:PROD (T-H-L)ed, but thanks to the efforts of the wonderful dears, Gerda Arendt (T-C-L) and Carrite (T-C-L) / Randy, it is now a reliably sourced WP:BLP (T-H-L) that likely satisfies WP:Notability (academics) (T-H-L) (although it could be expanded using the reviews of his books, including those already cited, or more obituaries, which are difficult to access in Europe).

In its last citation, two errors (URL and page) should be updated as follows:
<ref name="Eden">{{cite journal
|title=The Entangling Alliance: The United States and European Security, 1950–1993. By Ronald E. Powaski. (Westport: Greenwood, 1994. xxii, 261 pp. $59.95, ISBN 0-313-27275-1.)
| last=Eden|first=Douglas
|journal=The Journal of American History |publisher=Oxford University Press|volume=82 |issue=2|date=September 1995|page=829
| url=https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/82/2/829/712197|ref=harv}}</ref>
Presumably, the book-review could have a shortened title.

[Poetlister]

Here's the ANI discussion:

ANI

Apparently, our friend Black Kite reverted all the edits. Someone called Staincrag (T-C-L) then made some of the same edits but was blocked indefinitely.

And an article in the Daily Mail (though of course on Wikipedia it's a deprecated source).

Daily Mail

I hear that there has been much Twitter comment, with people saying that they will stop editing WP.

[Eric Corbett]

I hear that there has been much Twitter comment, with people saying that they will stop editing WP.

They'll be easily replaced by other dupes.

As BrillLyle commented above, Wade has got it completely wrong when she says things like " ... it is *our* responsibility to make the encyclopedia less biased. you, me, your readers, the rest of the world. it is not wikipedia's job." Wikipedia has become a toxic environment that no editor, far less any reader, can do anything about, and the WMF's ham-fisted efforts with their risible Trust & Safety team have only made things worse.

[Osborne]

And an article in the Daily Mail (though of course on Wikipedia it's a deprecated source).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... exism.html

"Physicist accuses 'white men in North America' Wikipedia editors of sexism ..."

With that title, it's for the best to keep it "deprecated".

[Eric Corbett]

Why? It's simply reporting what she said, whether what she said is true or not.

[Osborne]

Why? It's simply reporting what she said, whether what she said is true or not.

Clickbait tabloid title. The article is better thou than the title.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Here's a funny coincidence. Kenan Sulayman, the "public relations wizard", also runs tor exit nodes. The IP that was used to make those edits 185.107.47.119 (T-C-L) just happens to be a tor exit node. And, yes, it is operated by Kenan Sulayman.

Let's add Jess Wade's original tweet here for posterity. And an archive.

[Eric Corbett]

Why? It's simply reporting what she said, whether what she said is true or not.

Clickbait tabloid title. The article is better thou than the title.

I think you've got it arse about tit.

[Moral Hazard]

Heja Yngvadottir (T-C-L),
who updated the article on Ronald E. Powaski (T-H-L), as humbly suggested, and who made many additional improvements! diff
Tack!

In its last citation, two errors (URL and page) should be updated as follows:
<ref name="Eden">{{cite journal
|title=The Entangling Alliance: The United States and European Security, 1950–1993. By Ronald E. Powaski. (Westport: Greenwood, 1994. xxii, 261 pp. $59.95, ISBN 0-313-27275-1.)
| last=Eden|first=Douglas
|journal=The Journal of American History |publisher=Oxford University Press|volume=82 |issue=2|date=September 1995|page=829
| url=https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/82/2/829/712197|ref=harv}}</ref>
Presumably, the book-review could have a shortened title.

diff

[Poetlister]

I hear that there has been much Twitter comment, with people saying that they will stop editing WP.

They'll be easily replaced by other dupes.

As BrillLyle commented above, Wade has got it completely wrong when she says things like " ... it is *our* responsibility to make the encyclopedia less biased. you, me, your readers, the rest of the world. it is not wikipedia's job." Wikipedia has become a toxic environment that no editor, far less any reader, can do anything about, and the WMF's ham-fisted efforts with their risible Trust & Safety team have only made things worse.

Wikipedia is not an entity. It is the sum of its editors, and if there is a bad bias then it is the job of the editors collectively to fix it. Maybe she means it is not the WMF's job. Certainly they will disclaim responsibility, and indeed they must or they could become liable for the contents of Wikipedia.

[Eric Corbett]

As BrillLyle commented above, Wade has got it completely wrong when she says things like " ... it is *our* responsibility to make the encyclopedia less biased. you, me, your readers, the rest of the world. it is not wikipedia's job." Wikipedia has become a toxic environment that no editor, far less any reader, can do anything about, and the WMF's ham-fisted efforts with their risible Trust & Safety team have only made things worse.

Wikipedia is not an entity. It is the sum of its editors, and if there is a bad bias then it is the job of the editors collectively to fix it. Maybe she means it is not the WMF's job. Certainly they will disclaim responsibility, and indeed they must or they could become liable for the contents of Wikipedia.

Then perhaps it would be easier if she said what she meant, rather than leaving you to speculate.

[Osborne]

Heja Yngvadottir (T-C-L),
who updated the article on Ronald E. Powaski (T-H-L), as humbly suggested, and who made many additional improvements! diff
Tack!

Takk!
Excuse my pedantry.

[Poetlister]

As BrillLyle commented above, Wade has got it completely wrong when she says things like " ... it is *our* responsibility to make the encyclopedia less biased. you, me, your readers, the rest of the world. it is not wikipedia's job." Wikipedia has become a toxic environment that no editor, far less any reader, can do anything about, and the WMF's ham-fisted efforts with their risible Trust & Safety team have only made things worse.

Wikipedia is not an entity. It is the sum of its editors, and if there is a bad bias then it is the job of the editors collectively to fix it. Maybe she means it is not the WMF's job. Certainly they will disclaim responsibility, and indeed they must or they could become liable for the contents of Wikipedia.

Then perhaps it would be easier if she said what she meant, rather than leaving you to speculate.

No doubt she knows the difference between Wikipedia and the WMF, but she was speaking to an audience that probably does not, so she was oversimplifying for their benefit.

[BrillLyle]

I started the article Ronald E. Powaski (T-H-L) when I saw an Oxford University Press history by him in a Stockholm bookstore and I discovered that he was teaching at a high school.

It was recently WP:PROD (T-H-L)ed, but thanks to the efforts of the wonderful dears, Gerda Arendt (T-C-L) and Carrite (T-C-L) / Randy, it is now a reliably sourced WP:BLP (T-H-L) that likely satisfies WP:Notability (academics) (T-H-L) (although it could be expanded using the reviews of his books, including those already cited, or more obituaries, which are difficult to access in Europe).

In its last citation, two errors (URL and page) should be updated as follows:
<ref name="Eden">{{cite journal
|title=The Entangling Alliance: The United States and European Security, 1950–1993. By Ronald E. Powaski. (Westport: Greenwood, 1994. xxii, 261 pp. $59.95, ISBN 0-313-27275-1.)
| last=Eden|first=Douglas
|journal=The Journal of American History |publisher=Oxford University Press|volume=82 |issue=2|date=September 1995|page=829
| url=https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/82/2/829/712197|ref=harv}}</ref>
Presumably, the book-review could have a shortened title.

If I was allowed to legally edit, I would hop on and add a ton of stuff to this article. There's a lot that can be done to re-inforce notability.

Also if it was about a non-white male subject I would be more inclined. But it's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

My unasked for suggestions:
- Use typical section headings
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e_elements
-- Biography is what the entire article is
-- Use:
--- Early life and education, Career, Works and publications
- Go to FamilySearch.org and see if they list his full name, including middle name
- List all of his books
-- Check to see if he has also written articles -- it's probable, and also further establishes notability
--- I think the Commentaries is an odd title, and they should be added to a H3 as Selected articles (and create a H3 for Books)
--- Search Worldcat.org -- it's fabulous and the viewport digitized items are much better than Google Books IMO (cleaner URL, nicer interface)
- FOR GOODNESS SAKE: Use horizontal citation formats and if possible, use the Cite template, which will automate things like books if you put in the ISBN numbers, DOIs, etc.). The more typical horizontal citation format makes the page easier for everyone to edit, as well. I get this is the old style way but it's just not typical
-- harv ref style is pure evil, IMO - so avoid those and cite inline
- Add Memberships and any honors or awards he's won (helps notability)
-- Pull from Prabook as a starting point
-- Award nomination / winning pages often point to other awards and usually have nice bits of biographical facts that can be used to find additional citations
- Use Prabook timeline to add a timeline of his career that is more broken out, then cite each addition
-- It's probably pulled from the guy's LinkedIn, so go and look for that and again reverse engineer that info
--- I did that for Katherine Maher's page and that's why she looks much more competent and solid than she is....
- Wikidata identifiers
-- bulk that shiz up from the bottom area of the VIAF page: https://viaf.org/viaf/76414546/
--- History of VIAF ID:76414546 (19) <-- 19 is a lot and can help to establish notability
- Avoid using books by subject as citations (not sure why there's two dissertations, but I always like adding those to the page. But you need more tertiary sources
- Create a Commons category to collect all images and put the {{Commons category|[Name]}} in footer
- External links are weak -- I'd never use NNDB as it's borderline and who knows where it comes from
-- That said, it's a great source to reverse engineer possible places to look for more info on the guy
- He taught at many universities. See if he had a home page there that could be used as an external link. Colleges often keep those pages up
- Prabook is also a bit sketch, but again, reverse engineer the info
-- Yoinks there's a ton of personal info on there.... Living people info. Don't love this as far as BLP privacy.....

There's probably a lot more but this is just off the top of my head.

- Erika f/k/a BrillLyle aaaagh

[BrillLyle]

No doubt she knows the difference between Wikipedia and the WMF, but she was speaking to an audience that probably does not, so she was oversimplifying for their benefit.

Agree. But also, disagree on the differentiation between the WMF and Wikipedia.

At a certain point, the two are indistinguishable, and it's not wrong to expect Wikipedia to fix their toxic community. It is Wikipedia's responsibility to fix itself. It is also very much the WMF's responsibility to fix itself.

The current rush for donations is really chapping my ass. Illustrating the argument that the WMF is not allowed to fundraise off volunteer contributions and then say, our hands are tied. It's just a load of freaking bulltwaddle.

[BrillLyle]

Let's add Jess Wade's original tweet here for posterity. And an archive.

Thanks for posting this, as like a right ijit I hadn't seen this (and more importantly the responses) on Twitter.

Bossy McBossy-Pants over here, but you might want to expand all the replies before Archiving for a more complete view of the thread....

[Pudeo]

Let's add Jess Wade's original tweet here for posterity. And an archive.

editing @Wikipedia from an IP address (without signing in) is sneaky and makes me distrustful of your intentions. if you want to keep fooling yourself that the world was created and is led by white men... have fun with that. these stories won’t go untold.

meanwhile deeming cricket players from the 1930s who never scored as notable enough because they’re white men!

I don't think I've ever seen an AfD vote arguing something should be kept because they're white men. Anyway, she should check her privilege. She's a white woman with a persecution complex who's showing off her iPhone 11 at the Imperial College.

[Midsize Jake]

...she should check her privilege. She's a white woman with a persecution complex who's showing off her iPhone 11 at the Imperial College.

All those things are true, but the fact remains, she didn't initiate the "row," the article headline is misleading, the iPhone 11 does have quality optics, and it's not really her fault that they named the college during the Victorian era when the Brits thought they were, you know, all that.

As for the persecution complex, that's pretty much normal for women these days — it would probably be normal for women throughout human history if Twitter and Instagram had always existed. Right-wingers and American college football fans are just as bad, if not worse.

[BrillLyle]

As for the persecution complex, that's pretty much normal for women these days — it would probably be normal for women throughout human history if Twitter and Instagram had always existed. Right-wingers and American college football fans are just as bad, if not worse.

I take exception to this. I don't think women have a persecution complex. I think men enjoy unlimited and wide-ranging bias, at the expense of others, and with #MeToo and #TimesUp, there's more empowerment to speaking out and up about things that are consistently and ridiculously unequal.

It also makes me feel very uncomfortable to read this stuff here. Saying this so-called persecution complex is normal for women these days is a flip and dismissive thing to say.

I think I'm posting too much rn. Going to take a break.

[Poetlister]

I don't think I've ever seen an AfD vote arguing something should be kept because they're white men.

No, but it may well be conjectured that an aricle about a white man, especially an American, is less likely to be sent to AfD than one about a woman, or coloured person, or someone from another country. And of course it might implicitly be treated more favourably if it does go to AfD.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Bossy McBossy-Pants over here, but you might want to expand all the replies before Archiving for a more complete view of the thread....

If I knew how to make that happen, I would. The archiving bot gets what it gets.

[Moral Hazard]

Poetlister,
Your word choice is similar to one of my sainted ancestors born in the 1890s.

[Earthy Astringent]

Just curious, has Wade been bragging about expanding female BLPs?

An incel or a similar type would find it Wade an irresistible target.

I can also see some editors taking issue with a perceived SJW adding articles for “justice” as being pointy.

And Brille, for fucks sake, start socking.

[Poetlister]

Bossy McBossy-Pants over here, but you might want to expand all the replies before Archiving for a more complete view of the thread....

If I knew how to make that happen, I would. The archiving bot gets what it gets.

Simple. Expand everything as soon as you can, before the bot can act.

[10920]

The battle rages on, in unexpected places:

It is shamefully sexist to continue this gendered language for ships. But anyone who dares to challenge the entitled old men who rule in parts of WP will be utterly savaged. They really need to be taken on, but it must be a concerted push by people who want to follow the increasing acknowledgement in English-language style that gendered pronoun usage is part of the sexist male pushback. We should not give a damn what the British or whatever navy says it wants. Tony (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Tony1 (T-C-L) sounds like a sexist to me.

[Poetlister]

The battle rages on, in unexpected places:

It is shamefully sexist to continue this gendered language for ships. But anyone who dares to challenge the entitled old men who rule in parts of WP will be utterly savaged. They really need to be taken on, but it must be a concerted push by people who want to follow the increasing acknowledgement in English-language style that gendered pronoun usage is part of the sexist male pushback. We should not give a damn what the British or whatever navy says it wants. Tony (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Tony sounds like a sexist to me.

He undoubtedly is, but there is very little that can be done about him.