The Wikipedia monster gleefully tears down the future Queen of England

[Kraken]

There's something so truly self-centered about how little (if any) self-editing you do and expecting people to spend the minutes (literally) it takes to read each and every single one of your posts.

The self centered accusation is better levied at those who respond to one of my posts, causing me to respond at some considerable expense of my time and energy, only to be met with a laughable claim they didn't read it, to cover for their inability to defend their position.

It has already been pointed out but I'll repeat, I didn't for example bring the Daily Mail into this. But when it was becoming clear someone wanted to make some kind of point out of it, I did the work to address it. Only for that person to then decide they no longer wanted to defend their position. So whose time is being wasted? Who is the self centered individual in that scenario?

The same thing played out with the person who came in to make a deeply hurtful point about how Kate had it coming, while laughably also claiming they're not reading anything here. Literally nothing. So why are they even in here wasting people's time with multiple posts?

That one is on me, and I'll accept responsibility for wasting anyone's time if they didn't want to know exactly why that comment is deeply hurtful and how it relates to the harm done by Wikipedia. But if they enter a thread with this title, they should probably expect posts thst speak to it, no?

But yes, brevity is key. But brevity at the cost of losing the essence of what needs to be said? That is a compete and total waste of time.

[greenday61892]

There's something so truly self-centered about how little (if any) self-editing you do and expecting people to spend the minutes (literally) it takes to read each and every single one of your posts.

The self centered accusation is better levied at those who respond to one of my posts, causing me to respond at some considerable expense of my time and energy, only to be met with a laughable claim they didn't read it, to cover for their inability to defend their position.

It has already been pointed out but I'll repeat, I didn't for example bring the Daily Mail into this. But when it was becoming clear someone wanted to make some kind of point out of it, I did the work to address it. Only for that person to then decide they no longer wanted to defend their position. So whose time is being wasted? Who is the self centered individual in that scenario?

The same thing played out with the person who came in to make a deeply hurtful point about how Kate had it coming, while laughably also claiming they're not reading anything here. Literally nothing. So why are they even in here wasting people's time with multiple posts?

That one is on me, and I'll accept responsibility for wasting anyone's time if they didn't want to know exactly why that comment is deeply hurtful and how it relates to the harm done by Wikipedia. But if they enter a thread with this title, they should probably expect posts thst speak to it, no?

But yes, brevity is key. But brevity at the cost of losing the essence of what needs to be said? That is a compete and total waste of time.

What needs to be said???? oh my god your self-importance was worse than I thought

lmfao "nu uh ackshully you're the one wasting my time forcing me to write these sanctimonious screeds no one asked for!"

[Vigilant]

What needs to be said???? oh my god your self-importance was worse than I thought

lmfao "nu uh ackshully you're the one wasting my time forcing me to write these sanctimonious screeds no one asked for!"

You see, the world without Crow's Abd-esque screeds just isn't one worth living in.

[tarantino]

I've been hoping that peer pressure would encourage Kraken to moderate his approach here, so actual moderation wouldn't be necessary. I can see now that it is unlikely to work because he doesn't consider anyone is his peer.

In the meantime, feel free to not read or respond to his exorbitant posts.

[Ron Lybonly]

So, Kraken, we’ve all beat this thread to death, especially you.

I suggest you just drop this and move on. Let the other guy have the last word; it doesn’t determine who “wins” - it’s other readers’ silent absorption of your respective arguments.

You’re just hurting yourself persisting here with long posts. Meanwhile you’ve got some shorter posts in other threads worth reading.

Hang in there - work with us!

[Mojito]

Or perhaps go with the opposite approach: rename this thread to "A Place Where Kraken Can Crow To His Heart's Content" and then hopefully we won't have to scroll past so many TLDR screeds in the rest of WPO.

[Kraken]

This is still a live issue. The article is still being edited, poorly. The bureaucracy is still stuck as far as answering the core questions. And yet while the article persists and interest is still high, sources that tell the truth of the matter are still either absent, or present only in a massive but unstructured pile of footnotes.

I can provide short daily summaries like this, devoid of detail or analysis. Easily ignored because they say nothing and reveal nothing without real effort on the part of the reader to check if I've nailed it or I am just a raving lunatic. And maybe that's what certain posters here want. No, let's have it right. That's what some posters here definitely want. I have proven it. And they did not like it.

I frankly can't find in myself what a person needs, the sheer lack of self respect, to care about their upset given their motives. Nor do what they would have me do and just walk away. I do however take the points of those who are interested and were reading and have given good advice, on board. They are my peers.

And so I invite their comments regarding how such things should be covered in a Wikipedia criticism forum setting for the maximum benefit of wider society and the betterment of Wikipedia.

I am a paid writer and I could quite easily get this stuff in the Atlantic if I wished. Do it in my sleep it's that easy. But there's no real point. Not if their first port of call, the pre-eminent Wikipedia investigation website, is devoid of any useful context, analysis or expert opinion. Or worse, is merely echoing the worst of wider society, contrary to the goals of Wikipedia.

Everyone has a choice. Everything is a test. Everyone is under scrutiny here. This is a public forum, albeit one whose Administrators and Moderators have great power in how they decide who does and does not get to participate and why. With great power.......

I considered creating this as a side topic in the meta forum, because it's got nothing to do with Kate or Wikipedia really. But in the present environment I would be wise to avoid giving anyone the excuse to say I am creating threads pointlessly and wasting their precious time. So I'll leave it to the staff to decide where it should be. Or even if it should be.

[Yamato]

I am a paid writer

Ah.

[rnu]

I am a paid writer

Ah.

Paid per word (or page) I assume?

[AndyTheGrump]

Charlie Warzel, writing in The Atlantic:

It was always going to end this way. The truth about Kate Middleton’s absence is far less funny, whimsical, or salacious than the endless memes and conspiracy theories suggested. In a video recorded and broadcast by the BBC, the princess says she has cancer, and that she had retreated from the public eye to deal with her condition while attempting to shield her children from the spotlight. Instead, she had to contend with the internet giggling about whether she’d had a Brazilian butt lift. My colleague Helen Lewis summed it up succinctly this afternoon: “I Hope You All Feel Terrible Now.”

What is there to learn from such a sad situation? The internet is made up of people, yet its architecture abstracts this basic truth. As I wrote a few weeks ago, at the center of this months-long story was essentially “a sea of people having fun online because it is unclear whether a famous person is well or not.” Underneath the memes was always something a little bit gross and indefensible.

Perhaps humans are just wired this way—to gawk and gossip. There’s nothing new about hounding a member of the royal family or invading the privacy of a celebrity to sell tabloids or go viral. You don’t even have to be a scold about it: Famous people are wealthy and beloved at least in part because they’re fun to talk about. Exactly what we do and don’t know about their internal lives is part of the allure—the discourse comes with the territory, to a degree.

link

Compare and contrast with Kraken's rants. I don't think the Atlantic needs another writer.

[Vigilant]

I am a paid writer

Ah.

lol

[rnu]

Plot twist: Kraken makes a living writing pithy slogans and one-liners.

[AndyTheGrump]

Plot twist: Kraken makes a living writing pithy slogans and one-liners.

Headlines for the Daily Mail?

[Vigilant]

Plot twist: Kraken makes a living writing pithy slogans and one-liners.

Krowken starves to death in a council flat, news at 11.

[yasslay]

<snip>
raving lunatic
<snip>

Well, yes. Clearly the members who've posted here are your audience and they're dissatisfied with your response and the messages you're trying to convey. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Rob on that your long form writing is good but Wikipediocracy simply isn't the place for it. It's mostly conversational here - no long walls of TL;DR text required here, just summarise your key points and let us engage in conversation with you. No self-aggrandisation needed.

[Kraken]

Charlie Warzel, writing in The Atlantic:

Perhaps humans are just wired this way—to gawk and gossip. There’s nothing new about hounding a member of the royal family or invading the privacy of a celebrity to sell tabloids or go viral.

......

the discourse comes with the territory, to a degree.

Compare and contrast with Kraken's rants. I don't think the Atlantic needs another writer.

Charlie is wrong. As I am pretty sure I have said already (not Charlie personally, but his lazy tropes that refuse to die). It's almost like you're not reading my posts Andy.



Not even when my last one was extra specially short, for busy people. Here's a source I would have included in my last post if I wasn't trying hard not to waste people's time on silly details and proper analysis......

MEDIA MEMO

For Once, the British Tabloids Held Back. It Didn’t Make a Difference.

The online frenzy over Catherine’s health escalated despite a reserved approach by Fleet Street — which promptly blamed Americans for the furor.

March 24, 2024

......

In the case of Catherine’s recent whereabouts, however, the British press largely showed an unusual level of restraint.

.....

When the American outlet TMZ obtained a paparazzi photo of Catherine and her mother in a car, the London papers unanimously declined to publish it.

......

Gatekeepers who once controlled the official flow of information — be it palace press secretaries or tabloid editors — are increasingly powerless against the online tide.

.......

both camps were flummoxed by the rampant misinformation that spread on the internet.

.......

palace officials, reluctant to compromise the princess’s privacy, mistakenly believed the rumors would fizzle out.

......

Max Foster, a lead London anchor for CNN, ..... spent hours discussing with CNN executives how to responsibly cover the rumors about Catherine without spreading misinformation

.......

Even British papers acknowledged, however, that Kensington Palace officials deserved some of the blame for allowing an information vacuum to develop.

......

The royals must “come clean about what’s really going on, or risk drowning in a quagmire of their own creation,” Sarah Vine, the Daily Mail’s influential columnist, wrote after the photo fiasco.

----

Michael M. Grynbaum writes about the intersection of media, politics and culture. He has been a media correspondent at The Times since 2016.

As we now know, the "photo fiasco" only happened because Kate felt pressured by this tide of madness to reassure people with a nice family snap. Something she's done many times.

This overwhelming prurient interest, driven by social media spreading conspiracy theories, American tabloids and personalities poking and prodding, and Amercian "reliable sources" running with all that as a story,

Only they focussed on "Where is Kate?" rather than "What the actual fuck is wrong with American media right now?". And Wikipedia is taking its sweet time to set the record straight. If it ever will.

[Dan of La Mancha]

Clearly the members who've posted here are your audience

It's a general rule of human behaviour that people are more likely to comment when they've got something to complain about, so I don't think it's safe to assume that those who've responded to Kraken in this thread represent his wider audience.

Personally, I don't think the length of Kraken's posts is a problem in itself. I generally enjoy reading them, provided they've got some substance to them. It's when they're 90% rhetoric that I start to lose interest. Ron Lybonly's advice was good. Write long-form posts when you've got something substantial to say; respond to criticism of your arguments with shorter posts, or not at all.

But what's been more disruptive to the progress of this thread, in my opinion – even more disruptive than the Daily Mail argument, since that at least can be extracted by the mods and moved elsewhere – has been the constant chipping in of people who have nothing much to say except "stop writing so much" or "I didn't read your post but I completely disagree with you." Comments like this contribute literally nothing to the conversation – but they naturally provoke a response from Kraken, which prompts more pointless harping, and so the thread spirals hopelessly out of control, and we get further and further from the purpose of this forum, which is to talk about Wikipedia, not about each other.

No-one is obliged to read or respond to Kraken's posts, and it would be courteous of those who don't want to take part in the conversation to stand aside for those who do.

[nableezy]

It's almost like you're not reading my posts Andy.

When you say something that's likely true, stop there.

[yasslay]

Clearly the members who've posted here are your audience

It's a general rule of human behaviour that people are more likely to comment when they've got something to complain about, so I don't think it's safe to assume that those who've responded to Kraken in this thread represent his wider audience.

Personally, I don't think the length of Kraken's posts is a problem in itself. I generally enjoy reading them, provided they've got some substance to them. It's when they're 90% rhetoric that I start to lose interest. Ron Lybonly's advice was good. Write long-form posts when you've got something substantial to say; respond to criticism of your arguments with shorter posts, or not at all.

But what's been more disruptive to the progress of this thread, in my opinion – even more disruptive than the Daily Mail argument, since that at least can be extracted by the mods and moved elsewhere – has been the constant chipping in of people who have nothing much to say except "stop writing so much" or "I didn't read your post but I completely disagree with you." Comments like this contribute literally nothing to the conversation – but they naturally provoke a response from Kraken, which prompts more pointless harping, and so the thread spirals hopelessly out of control, and we get further and further from the purpose of this forum, which is to talk about Wikipedia, not about each other.

No-one is obliged to read or respond to Kraken's posts, and it would be courteous of those who don't want to take part in the conversation to stand aside for those who do.

Agreed. Sorry to you Kraken - I was quite harsh in my original post, and Dan is right about the audience bit. However, I do agree with the rhetoric and people chipping in without contributing to the topic - myself included.

Going back on-topic, I do suppose that it's a consequence of gossip, but Kate's cancer (the disappearance is synonymous with it, in my opinion) having a separate article does seem incredibly insulting and undue. The contents of it should be merged into the article. I can't imagine this happening to a lower profile BLP regardless of media attention - it'd be deleted straight away.

[yasslay]

Only they focussed on "Where is Kate?" rather than "What the actual fuck is wrong with American media right now?". And Wikipedia is taking its sweet time to set the record straight. If it ever will.

It seems a new variant of Manhunt has been invented by American media. Shall we call it Katehunt?

As much as Wikipedia has a huge British userbase willing to (rightfully or wrongfully) curtail the influence of American media, I don't think the Americans would take it well, nor do I think it'd bode well for Wikipedia in general. There's a valid argument to decrease the weight given to American media in British articles and vice versa, but I don't see how it'd make a difference as a lot of the British media has already made similar but slightly less disparaging comments about Kate, which, of course, happened before the cancer diagnosis was announced by Kate and her team.

edit: phrasing at the end

[Vigilant]

Mods, time for a word limit for Crowken.

[Midsize Jake]

Mods, time for a word limit for Crowken.

We'll probably need one for me too, since you skipped paragraph 4 of my earlier post about this problem and you probably would have caught it if it had only been one or two paragraphs.

As for the posting-length question(s), once I upgrade to the latest phpBB version, it should be technically possible to modify the board software a bit to impose an smaller byte-limit on an individual member, but of course I don't like modifying the board software except as a last resort. (Currently it's a global setting, set to 64,000 characters.) Whereas, locking a thread only takes a couple of mouse-clicks, so... you see the dilemma!

The original post actually had it as "64 characters," which might still be too long in some cases.

[Midsize Jake]

...I do however take the points of those who are interested and were reading and have given good advice, on board. They are my peers.

And so I invite their comments regarding how such things should be covered in a Wikipedia criticism forum setting for the maximum benefit of wider society and the betterment of Wikipedia.

Okay, but because it's the Royals, everything we say here will be drowned out by the massive crap-flood of coverage from everywhere else, and 99% of the people who might otherwise be interested in the larger problem (i.e., privacy and the mishandling of celebrity events/non-events) will overlook or dismiss our opinions out of hand because "it's the Royals" and the rules simply don't apply to the Royals. (Except for the Kansas City Royals (T-H-L), since they still have to play by the rules of pro baseball.)

Personally, I don't see how it benefits the wider society much anyway, though I largely agree that Wikipedia would be made better by not buying into the excessive hype surrounding everything the Royals do.

[Konveyor Belt]

Meanwhile on ANI some people think SergeWoodzing (T-C-L) is being a bit dramatic about the whole thing.

[Kraken]

Fascinating. A higher class of article is bringing out a higher class of malcontent.

....Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Arise Sir Serge of Woodzing. I Knight thee in the name of the King (of Wikipedia).



It is perhaps solely due to the palpable sense of shame the good Knight speaks of (that you would hope every single Wikipedia editor is feeling right now) that explains why Damah God appears entirely uninterested in this report. Even their God's have forsaken these wretched beings.

I fear this is yet more of the inexperience IgnatiusofLondon (T-C-L) speaks of in his user page reflections.....

On 11 March 2024, I created Where is Kate?, an article on the speculation surrounding the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and the Mother's Day photograph that followed. The article was fully sourced using only reliable sources listed at WP:RSP.
......
My decision to create Where is Kate? ...... was never intended to feed the media interest in the story, encroach on the princess' privacy, or amplify gossip, but only to reflect the extensive and sustained coverage of the topic........It seemed a disservice to readers that the widespread speculation, lurid as it was, received no mention at all on Wikipedia when it had been leading newspaper headlines.
.....
As one editor has said, I have a lot to answer for. My edits were in good faith, and I hope my explanations provide some context for understanding my actions.......this was the first major BLP article to which I have contributed.
......
The controversy over Where is Kate? may have exposed some holes in the nets of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that should be knitted to prevent a repeat of the past two weeks.
......
I am sorry to everyone to whom I have caused distress. I should never have created the article. I'm sorry. IgnatiusofLondon 01:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Contrary to off-wiki comments made about me, I am not ...... I'm just inexperienced. IgnatiusofLondon 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft vote for 3rd AfD

Delete: This has been a torturous and difficult journey, but I understand now why the article should be deleted.
.......
...not even a quotable part of WP:BLP produces any immediately-obvious rationales for deletion. Instead, in my view, the article merely but brazenly violates the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP:
.......
It was broad handwaving over WP:BLP that led me to write the article in the first place, dissatisfied by editors' premature and dismissive closures of requests at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales for more coverage of the widespread speculation. If editors had better articulated the BLP concerns from the outset at that talk page, I would not have been moved to create the article. Now I understand better.... this article cuts against the spirit of the policy, not any quotable text that is particularly fitting to this article's case.

The painful last few days should provide an impetus for editors to reflect on whether Wikipedia's policies and guidelines need to be updated to cater for these kinds of articles, and the spirit of these policies and guidelines be better codified to avoid editors creating and maintaining articles that reflect media crazes [on living persons], even if they are generating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.
.......
Some editors have remarked off-wiki that the article has the signature of a coatrack article, exemplified by the widespread dissatisfaction of the current article title and the lack of consensus for an alternative name. I think this is a symptom of the underlying problem – that the article is about a media craze. Finally, the speculation can be, and should be, adequately summarised in a few sentences in Catherine, Princess of Wales; I think a Merge is unnecessary as the sources are readily findable. Given the BLP violations, I think an eventual Redirect is fine, so long as the page history of the present article is deleted, which is why I am supporting Delete. IgnatiusofLondon 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Supplementary comment: I was the article's creator, major contributor, and first AfD nominator. .... I acknowledge that I should never have created the article, and I am sorry for the distress I have caused and, in the eyes of many editors, for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, not only by the content of the article, but by the chaos created ......I hope my apology provides some explanation of what drove me to create and edit the article in the first place, and some reassurance that my editing activity has been in good faith. I'm sorry. IgnatiusofLondon 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I accept your apology IgnatiusofLondon.

While not blameless, given all the signposting in Wikipedia policy and guidance that advises editors to defer to their peers and exercise great caution in matters of BLP, you are perhaps being far too harsh on yourself as an individual.

This is regrettably a systemic fault of Wikipedia.

Sure, the BLP policy can be tweaked to cover situations like this. But it doesn't really need to be. The essay COATRACK is widely known, well understood and has the full support of the community as a Wikipeida: space supplementary explanation of the intersection between BLP and NPOV.

It flags the danger. The warning was not heeded. The why, is complex, but also very simple.

There is very little adult supervision on Wikipedia. Even less when a mob of inexperienced and misguided editors has been whipped up and genuinely believe they're acting in good faith. Many of the voters in these various debates might be literal children, and thus lack the maturity of thought required to balance complex policy. Children like simple rules. Yes/no. Do/don't. We cannot know how much this influenced events, and must not ask.

Others still are biased. Some known, some unknown. It's had a massive impact on this affair, and thus the views of Wikipedia editors. As is being admitted only now by some reliable sources, now distance is occurring, and guilt is being felt.

No, America, Britain does not treat Royals as public property. We do not consider every little detail of their lives to be our business. No, our trust has not been shattered. The tabloid interest exists, but for very obvious reasons (historical, practical, humane), in this specific case they showed exceptional restraint. The problem is that the Royals and Royal Correspondents are no longer in charge. Social media rules the roost, and regrettably, the media Wikipedia considers reliable, are all too happy to monetize it.

Such is the seriousness with which BLP is taken, this situation could have been prevented through the direct intervention of a single Administrator, the presumed responsible adults of Wikipedia, citing COATRACK. And the ensuing discussion of that act of caution, since BLP isn't merely a DO NOT but a WAIT AND DISCUSS, likely would have resembled that seen at BLP/N, rather than XfD.

But alas, Wikipedia has rather a crisis of availability in that area, Administrative availability or even giving a shitness. Or even clue! To take examples like After Midnight (T-C-L), one wonders how many of the supposedly "active" Administrators even understand the very basics of the BLP policy.

Fear not. There are still things you can do here. As I have said before, Wikipedia is curiously lacking in an article on Public image of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L), which is a rather common and accepted topic on Wikipedia for individuals with stratopheric notability. As the future Queen of England clearly is.

I can see such an article responsibly hosting the selarate but related matters of her absence and photography skills, and their alleged impact on the Royals. A couple of sections, given reasonable weight among other well covered matters, such as her fashion (itself an entire article at present!). All impeccably sourced, where they speak directly and in detail, from a position of authority. Rather than the latest hot takes from disphit social media correspondents whose bias against the Royals is often really rather obvious, as I pointed out in my opening post.

You have it in your gift as an inexperienced yet confirmed editor, to create such an article. And then populate it with content from existing articles (be mindful of the rules on internal attribution when copying text within Wikipedia). Then give it a quick and dirty edit, tossing the junk, keeping the gold.

I'm quite confident that if people can see this content presented with due weight, in an article that actually belongs on Wikipedia, they will be convinced of their error and come over to the Delete side.

If not, fuck em. Your eyes will have been opened as to the true nature of Wikipedia, and you may yet reconsider the wisdom of devoting the best part of your life to editing it. As it appears many Administrators have and are already considering.

What is dead can never die. But it can slide quietly into the deep, from whence it came.

[Kraken]

Yes it's certainly the Americans' fault when your favorite family acts suspiciously and your tabloid culture subsequently makes a spectacle of it. They should really know better than to pay attention to you. The untold death wreaked in the name of that family really was all so long ago, it's just terrible they're now being gossiped about on the internet. 2600B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865 (T-C-L) (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An interesting variant on she was asking for it.

Endorse or 3rd AfD. The 2nd AfD is now outdated as the dust has settled. The 2nd AfD mainly contains emotional responses immediately after the announcement. Furthermore, the article seems to have been restructured since. The only way forward is a 3rd AfD. It must also be noted that there is an active forum on the Wikipediocracy which targets this article The Wikipedia monster gleefully tears down the future Queen of England. 109.235.247.80 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Malcontents Inc.

Quarterly results should be quite good this year.

I'll be declining my bonus. Must keep up appearances.

Endorse. Truth coming out doesn’t mean the long period of deception never happened. Hyperbolick (T-C-L) (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "long period of deception"? There's a big difference between "vague statements" and "deception". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

And there's a big difference between vague statements and the truth of what was released. Kate has undergone serious abdominal surgery and is unlikely to return to her public duties until Easter.

The only deception occurring is the content of Where is Kate?. There is some truly awful misuses and misrepresentation of sources going on.

Critics of the monarchy have used the absence of Catherine and the manipulated photograph to highlight the wider issue of the royal family's secrecy.[119] 

Are Wikipedia editors so stupid as to not even question the context specific reliability of sources who decide to give airtime to absurd statements such as this.....

Kate made a rare personal statement last week defending her edited Mother's Day photo. She didn't address the root of the problem, which was the mounting speculation over her absence. The statement was issued on social media rather than through an official press office, creating a barrier between the palace and the public.

Evan Nierman, the founder and CEO of the crisis-communications firm Red Banyan, says that if Kate wants to recover her image, she must adopt the same authenticity that many of her online supporters (and critics) embody.

"In today's digital age, authenticity is not just valued, it's expected," Nierman told Business Insider.

Nierman said Kate must "double down on transparency and authenticity" by sharing her real experiences and challenges with the public.

And there was I thinking direct engagement through social media was how you showed authenticity in the digital age and broke down barriers between you and your followers.

It's seeing counter-factual garbage like this written in a so called reliable source that is meant to trigger serious editorial thought in the Wikipedians. Thoughts such as, who are Cheryl Teh and Mikhaila Friel and is their writing for the Entertainment section of Business Insider the highest quality source for making claims such as Kate herself erected a barrier between the Palace and the public?

Why is this garbage being tolerated on an encyclopedia? What happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

It's clear what Teh/Friel/Nierman are angry about (and why).....

That veil of silence
....
no details about her condition were given
.....
In 2023, the British royals spent $136 million, which exceeded the $109.1 million allowance the monarchy received from the Sovereign Grant, an annual lump sum the UK government gives to maintain the monarchy.
........
The family's continued role as royalty is also tied to extensive investments. The king earns millions in profits from the Duchy of Lancaster, a private estate the BBC reported was worth about $838 million. Prince William — who holds the title of Duke of Cornwall — benefits from the Duchy of Cornwall, a $1.2 billion estate that generated about $30 million in profits in the 2022 to 2023 financial year.
.....
dispensing only the barest of hints about where Kate may be.
.......
"As we have been clear since our initial statement in January, we shall not be providing a running commentary or providing daily updates," a palace spokesperson said on February 29.

This is what it is, what any professional historian would detect.

A couple of anti-Monarchy hacks sitting on the outside of the circle of Royal correspondents (who respected Kate's privacy) being royally pissed off that they're not being given a running commentary on Kate's private life (so they can monetize it) and so they're trying to construct an absurd argument that this would be justified because the Royals are rich and they're bilking the public purse. Chuck in a few quotes from the unbiased commentators Harry and Republic and we're good to go, RUN THE PRESSES.

Is this the so called serious news journalism we're supposed to consider as sitting far, far above the Daily Mail? Seriously? Without a Wikipedia COATRACK to hang this turd on, this sort of shite would dissappear as quickly as any fish and chip wrapping.

[TheSpacebook]

Hello everyone. I recently joined Wikipedia and I got swept up in the ‘Where is Kate?’ article, as I had immediate concerns it was being written in a way to blame Catherine and was propagating conspiracy theories about her as a covert hit-piece.

I wanted to keep the attention away from Catherine. At the beginning I refuted all attempts to make the article’s focus on the Mother’s Day photograph or the absence, and tried to keep it on the media commentary. Also, I kept the actual conspiracies sectioned off at the bottom, clearly labelled “unsubstantiated”. Granted, if you look through my edits, you’ll probably find some which unfairly targeted Catherine. For example, at one point I put the Mother’s Day photograph into the artwork infobox template, but immediately undid this edit. I also suggested the title “Absence and Mother’s Day photograph of Catherine, Princess of Wales” during a move discussion, which directly opposes my logic to take the attention away from Catherine.

I think that the article should stay. And I also wish to keep the title ‘Where is Kate?’, not only because it was the most used hashtag on social media and it featured in a large number of published articles, but also because it’s a good three-syllable phrase of why not to give back-to-back front page media attention and why not to create conspiracies about people who take some time off. It’s the very question NOT to ask when this happens. You never know what the person could be going through. The entire world let Catherine down, and I think the article (with that simple title) should serve as a damming reminder.

However, Wikipedia is not structured in the way I was expecting. In my first three months, I’ve noticed that the power structure is extremely Orwellian in nature. What I will say for now is that it’s extremely telling of the Orwellian nature there isn’t a criticism forum on the site. I feel as though there is an unseen entity, which I’ll call The Wikipedius, which editors conform to, which makes them choose policy and sacrifice common sense. The second AfD was procedurally closed, even though an extremely substantial piece of information was released, in favour of policy. But I have no issue with the admin that closed it, they were just following policy. But the only way to climb the ranks is to conform to The Wikipedius- so it makes sense why high ranking editors choose policy over common sense.

Wikipedia is a clearly a force for good with regard to fact-checking and verifiability due to its collaborative nature. It’s the go-to site for anything and I hope to be a long-term contributor to it. I only see some issues with the politics and governance of the site. My first impression is that it’s very medieval and has a lords-and-peasants class structure.

“Consensus” on Wikipedia is a fallacy because it’s directly influenced by The Wikipedius. I have an issue that adminship is granted indefinitely. I think there should be some sort of ‘Wikipedia Parliament’ where editors are voted in as admins, have set term lengths and then there is another vote when the term finishes. Currently, there is no room for change, as it’s impossible to be a critic of The Wikipedius and also gain power to become an admin.

The "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and "There is no common sense" policies are objectively Orwellian in nature. The Wikipedian Revolution will never happen, as those in power gain that power by conforming to The Wikipedius, and are removed from that power as “disruptive” should they oppose it.

[rnu]

Hello everyone. I recently joined Wikipedia and I got swept up in the ‘Where is Kate?’ article, as I had immediate concerns it was being written in a way to blame Catherine and was propagating conspiracy theories about her as a covert hit-piece.

I wanted to keep the attention away from Catherine. At the beginning I refuted all attempts to make the article’s focus on the Mother’s Day Photograph or the absence, and tried to keep it on the media commentary. Also, I kept the actual conspiracies sectioned off at the bottom, clearly labelled “unsubstantiated”. Granted, if you look through my edits, you’ll probably find some which unfairly targeted Catherine (for example, at one point I put the Mother’s Day photograph into the artwork infobox template, but immediately undid this edit).

I think that the article should stay. And I also wish to keep the title ‘Where is Kate?’, not only because it was the most used hashtag on social media and it featured in a large number of published articles, but also because it’s a good three-syllable phrase of why not to give back-to-back front page media attention and why not to create conspiracies about people who take some time off. It’s the very question NOT to ask when this happens. You never know what the person could be going through. The entire world let Catherine down, and I think the article (with that simple title) should serve as a damming reminder.

However, Wikipedia is not structured in the way I was expecting. In my first three months, I’ve noticed that it’s extremely Orwellian in nature. What I will say for now is that it’s extremely telling of the Orwellian nature there isn’t a criticism forum on the site. I feel as though there is an unseen entity, which I’ll call The Wikipedius, which editors conform to, choosing policy sacrificing common sense. The second AfD was procedurally closed, even though an extremely substantial information was released, in favour of policy. But I have no issue with the admin that closed it, they were just following policy. But the only way to climb the ranks is to conform to The Wikipedius- so it makes sense why high ranking editors choose policy over common sense.

Wikipedia is a clearly a force for good with regard to fact-checking and verifiability due to its collaborative nature. It’s the go-to site for anything and I hope to be a long-term contributor to it. I only see some issues with the politics and governance of the site. My first impression is that it’s very medieval and has a lords-and-peasants class structure.

“Consensus” on Wikipedia is a fallacy because it’s directly influenced by The Wikipedius. I have an issue that adminship being granted indefinitely. I think there should be some sort of ‘Wikipedia Parliament’ where editors are voted in as admins, have set term lengths and then there is another vote when the term finishes. Currently, there is no room for change, as it’s impossible for a critic of The Wikipedius and also gain power to become an admin.

The "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and "There is no common sense" policies are objectively Orwellian in nature. The Wikipedian Revolution will never happen, as those in power gain that power by conforming to The Wikipedius, and are removed from that power as “disruptive” should they oppose it.

[AndyTheGrump]

TheSpacebook

Personally, I'd say that Wikipedia was more Kafkaesque than Orwellian, though neither really capture its ability to generate drama out of trivia, and farce out of sheer pig-headed following of rules. It is, in many ways, deeply structurally flawed, both in its processes and in the resultant content. As to whether it is a 'force for good', that's clearly a matter of opinion here, with some contributors clearly thinking otherwise. Personally, I'm of the opinion that regardless of whether it is 'good' or not (however defined) it is clearly a force, due not least to the use Google makes of it, and the prominence it gets in searches. It merits critical, sceptical scrutiny for this reason alone.

As for the particulars, I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia is entirely incapable of creating a legitimate article on the hoo-ha over the imaginary 'disappearance' of Kate, due to the very structural flaws it exhibits. It picks subjects out of a mountain of differing sources, discussing a whole lot of different things, slaps a title on it, and then frames all the content around the title. It is essentially incapable of recognising just how distorting this process can be. The resulting article stands zero chance of ever being more than a regurgitation of tabloid hype built around social media lunacy. It is, in my opinion, as I said on WP:ANI recently, an unmitigated crock of shite - and so far, nobody has had the courage to disagree with me. Keeping it on the grounds that it might possibly become something better at some indefinite time in the future is standard Wikipedian reasoning, but pure wishful thinking if you've ever followed how these things turn out: the axe-grinders hang on, while everyone else moves on to the next dumpster fire.

And as for your comments on admins being elected for life, you'll not find any disagreement here. An absurd decision, made in the days when it didn't matter because Wikipedia was insignificant in its reach. Wikipedia is ruled almost entirely by inertia though, so don't expect it to change any time soon. Too many vested interests, too much looking after ones pals, and altogether far too much belief that everything is for the best in Wikipedia-land. A belief that becomes easier to hang on to every time anyone who thinks otherwise quits in disgust...

[rnu]

I think an article about the (social) media frenzy might be justified, but it will never be that. There should be one bright line rule: absolutely no sources written before the cancer announcement. Add to that no opinion pieces or primary pieces about Kate, only about the media frenzy. But of course that would be neither breaking news nor tabloid reporting, so there is no interest.

[TheSpacebook]

Thank you for the warm welcome! I didn’t know how I’d be received, as one of the main contributors to the article.

I think an article about the (social) media frenzy might be justified, but it will never be that. There should be one bright line rule: absolutely no sources written before the cancer announcement. Add to that no opinion pieces or primary pieces about Kate, only about the media frenzy. But of course that would be neither breaking news nor tabloid reporting, so there is no interest.

I disagree. I think the fact that mainstream media outlets had been fuelling conspiracy theories about someone who took time off since back in February, is important here. Social media too. The topic of the article should be about how the world essentially pressured a person to reveal a cancer diagnosis, through the spread of conspiracy theories on social media, endorsed by mainstream outlets and figures such as the most high-profile comedians using their platforms to make jokes about it. Truly dystopian. The photoshop fail was clearly just used as an excuse to increase the reporting of it. So I think the opinion pieces should be included. (The Queen Victoria part should also be included for the historical significance of another royal taking time off, that time to grieve the loss of her husband, with that also causing a public reaction).

Essentially, I believe ‘Where is Kate?’ serves as a cautionary tale, and I have no doubt that it will be referenced in the future.

[Kraken]

This article will only serve as a cautionary tale or sober reminder if it is rewritten with the highest quality sources and people actually remember what "Where is Kate?" means in five or ten years time without having to look it up.

Neither will happen, for the exact same reason. This is not an encyclopedia article. Nobody will be looking up Where is Kate? on Wikipedia because that phrase is meaningless with distance. In due course, beyond the news horizon into the realms of historical analysis, there won't be any high quality sources discussing only this topic for Wikipedia to summarise.

At most, it will be talked about in the context of a wider subject. Kate. Privacy. Monarchy. Anti-Monarchy thirstyness. Photojournalism. Social media. Collective Stupidity. Russian troll farms. And so it will be naturally summarised in those Wikipedia articles. Put into context. It's time.

Applying all of the proper rules and conventions, namely conciseness, precision, recognition, neutrality, the correct WP:TITLE of this article really is Absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L). That is the topic being discussed by the sources in it.

No absence, no Mother's Day photograph. No absence, no cancelled reading by Prince William. No absence, no speculation. No absence, no conspiracy theories. No absence, no forcing a women to explain her absence by revealing deeply private and personal information leading to some guilt but also a pretty large amount of attempted justification and deflection.

This article is not about social media whackjobs using the hasthag #WhereIsKate. They're still out there, they're still convinced Kate is dead and that video message was a deep fake. They're social media whackjobs, it's what they do. The Russian trollfarm has already moved on.

Since Wikipedia doesn't and never has had articles with that title, it's unsuitability as a Wikipedia article is stark. To the point it really is remarkable that it still exists. Pretty shameful stuff.

[Kraken]

DRV overdue.

Cowardice reigns in the land of the Wikipedians.

[Elinruby]

Like I said, it goes with the job. Wikipedia enforcing its policies wouldn't change any of that. And lots of jobs involve dealing with shit: metaphorically or for real. Most of them pay a lot less well.

The woman was a consenting adult when she voluntarily married a man whose mother was hounded to death by the paparazzi. Surely she chose to be Queen of England any with her eyes open. What's his name, the younger son, I do have some compassion for.

[Kraken]

Now at AfD for a third time.

Trending heavily to delete, but sadly only with the help of the very deeply held prejudices of certain Wikipedia editors......

Delete and boil down this tabloid trash to a one-line entry in the Middleton article with a redirect. It's WP:BLPGOSSIP and won't stand a ten week test, let alone a ten year test. This is an encyclopaedia, not the Daily Mail online. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been made crystal clear by reliable sources, the British tabloids showed remarkable restraint and respects Kate's privacy from the outset.

This is a brand new problem, albeit mixed with a bit old school socialist hatred of the Monarchy. It came from the combination of vile rumours and whackjob conspiracy nuts on social media (possibly massively boosted by Russian troll farms) with a mainstream media that in this day and age is clearly feeling the need to cover it on their "Entertainment/Social Media/Life" sections (as distinct from traditional Royal reporting). Probably even having to cover it, for the clicks. Not really a problem the Daily Mail has.

I have said this many times in this thread now, and yet there are still people claiming she knew what she signed up for. Lady Di was indeed killed by the paparazzi. That would be the likes of TMZ of today. As per reliable sources, the British tabloids' restraint here included refusing en masse to run with pap shots from the likes of TMZ.

[AndyTheGrump]

"Remarkable restraint"
link

Some poor unfortunate with obvious mental health problems who is "68th in line to the throne" merits headlines in the Daily Mail 'Royalty' section? For public order offences? Yeah, right...

[Kraken]

"Remarkable restraint"
link

Some poor unfortunate with obvious mental health problems who is "68th in line to the throne" merits headlines in the Daily Mail 'Royalty' section? For public order offences? Yeah, right...

What's that got to do with Kate?

IIIrc you started a separate thread for generic Mail bashing to prevent exactly this kind of derailing. I dare say all that I raised there will probably apply to this story for the same reasons.

[AndyTheGrump]

"Remarkable restraint"
link

Some poor unfortunate with obvious mental health problems who is "68th in line to the throne" merits headlines in the Daily Mail 'Royalty' section? For public order offences? Yeah, right...

What's that got to do with Kate?

IIIrc you started a separate thread for generic Mail bashing to prevent exactly this kind of derailing. I dare say all that I raised there will probably apply to this story for the same reasons.

It was you that brought the Daily Mail back into the conversation, not me. If you don't want to see evidence that your shitty tabloid is obsessed with 'royalty' gossip, I suggest you stop posting bullshit about 'restraint'. As regards to the Kate nonsense, the DM and Wikipedia are peas in a pod. Both regurgitating vacuous gossip and facile conspiracy theories, while pretending to be above it, and only reporting that gossip existed. They both merit criticism, for exactly the same reasons. If your obsession (or is it employment?) with the Daily Mail blinds you to this obvious fact, that's your problem, not mine.

[Kraken]

"Remarkable restraint"
link

Some poor unfortunate with obvious mental health problems who is "68th in line to the throne" merits headlines in the Daily Mail 'Royalty' section? For public order offences? Yeah, right...

What's that got to do with Kate?

IIIrc you started a separate thread for generic Mail bashing to prevent exactly this kind of derailing. I dare say all that I raised there will probably apply to this story for the same reasons.

It was you that brought the Daily Mail back into the conversation, not me. If you don't want to see evidence that your shitty tabloid is obsessed with 'royalty' gossip, I suggest you stop posting bullshit about 'restraint'. As regards to the Kate nonsense, the DM and Wikipedia are peas in a pod. Both regurgitating vacuous gossip and facile conspiracy theories, while pretending to be above it, and only reporting that gossip existed. They both merit criticism, for exactly the same reasons. If your obsession (or is it employment?) with the Daily Mail blinds you to this obvious fact, that's your problem, not mine.

As you seem to gleefully revel in, real people are potentially harmed by the kind of things being said by SchroCat on Wikipedia. I brought it up because it's a clear example of how facts don't seem to get in the way of Wikipedia editors expressing a deep prejudice against that paper.

According to reliable sources, and for very obvious reasons, Where is Kate? is a rare example of the Mail not doing what lazy reliable media (right up to senior CNN staff) happily assume is the stuff of British Royal tabloid correspondents. Makes no difference to them. Prejudice over fact. Unchecked on Wikipedia. Checked here, but without effect apparently.

I'm not surprised you declined to be put in that same pod, and if anything, jumped right in of your own free will. It's giving a free pass to the likes of the "Royal News" section of Marie Claire UK, who I would be very surprised even have a Royal correspondent, and what Wikipedia used it for, but I don't get the sense you really care.

[Elinruby]

Now at AfD for a third time.

Trending heavily to delete, but sadly only with the help of the very deeply held prejudices of certain Wikipedia editors......

Delete and boil down this tabloid trash to a one-line entry in the Middleton article with a redirect. It's WP:BLPGOSSIP and won't stand a ten week test, let alone a ten year test. This is an encyclopaedia, not the Daily Mail online. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been made crystal clear by reliable sources, the British tabloids showed remarkable restraint and respects Kate's privacy from the outset.

This is a brand new problem, albeit mixed with a bit old school socialist hatred of the Monarchy. It came from the combination of vile rumours and whackjob conspiracy nuts on social media (possibly massively boosted by Russian troll farms) with a mainstream media that in this day and age is clearly feeling the need to cover it on their "Entertainment/Social Media/Life" sections (as distinct from traditional Royal reporting). Probably even having to cover it, for the clicks. Not really a problem the Daily Mail has.

I have said this many times in this thread now, and yet there are still people claiming she knew what she signed up for. Lady Di was indeed killed by the paparazzi. That would be the likes of TMZ of today. As per reliable sources, the British tabloids' restraint here included refusing en masse to run with pap shots from the likes of TMZ.

[Kraken]

How ironic that this third AfD is now so large it can be seen from space, is dominated by observation based reasoning but also features the odd whackjob in a tinfoil hat trying to fly Wikipedia to the Moon using a Casio wristwatch, and so complex yet fraught with danger it really should only be closed by an actual rocket scientist.

[AndyTheGrump]

Just when it looked like Wikipedia had reached peak fucking-everything-up, they've managed to surpass themselves once more. Some bright spark named KlayCax (T-C-L) has just closed the 'Where is Kate?' AfD as 'no consensus', only for it to be immediately reverted by Silver seren (T-C-L). As far as I can see, the AfD closure wasn't actually against policy (stupid, and possibly trolling, but not against policy as such, given that non-admin closures are commonplace), whereas the revert quite possibly is.

[Elinruby]

I was just looking at that discussion, against my better judgment. Why is the article Where is Kate? (T-H-L) redirected to Where is Kate? (T-H-L)??

[Konveyor Belt]

I was just looking at that discussion, against my better judgment. Why is the article Where is Kate? (T-H-L) redirected to Where is Kate? (T-H-L)??

Because the question mark is considered a special symbol when it appears at the end of a URL because your browser/Wikipedia thinks it's part of a Query string (T-H-L) and ignores it. So even if you type

Code: Select all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where is Kate?

into a web browser you'll go to the non question mark version first and get redirected.

[Ryuichi]

Just when it looked like Wikipedia had reached peak fucking-everything-up, they've managed to surpass themselves once more. Some bright spark named KlayCax (T-C-L) has just closed the 'Where is Kate?' AfD as 'no consensus', only for it to be immediately reverted by Silver seren (T-C-L). As far as I can see, the AfD closure wasn't actually against policy (stupid, and possibly trolling, but not against policy as such, given that non-admin closures are commonplace), whereas the revert quite possibly is.

Not a particularly good close. If "weight of arguments" is mentioned in the close, it should also explain which arguments held greater weight, and why.

[Elinruby]

I was just looking at that discussion, against my better judgment. Why is the article Where is Kate? (T-H-L) redirected to Where is Kate? (T-H-L)??

Because the question mark is considered a special symbol when it appears at the end of a URL because your browser/Wikipedia thinks it's part of a Query string (T-H-L) and ignores it. So even if you type

Code: Select all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where is Kate?

into a web browser you'll go to the non question mark version first and get redirected.

Aha thank you. I actually should have remembered running into that before when I tried to link from here to Why die for Danzig? (T-H-L)

[Bezdomni]

The result was '''no consensus'''. While attentive observers will note that there is a numerical majority for deletion, the conclusions of RFC's are not a popularity contest, but also reflect the strength of arguments presented, among other considerations. Editors provided excellent arguments for keeping, merging, and deleting the article in line with policy. Additionally, many of the objections are only about the article's title: rather than it's contents. {{nac}} [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 03:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__

It's content that it caused excellent arguments (for keeping, merging, and deleting), really it is.

I noticed earlier today, AndytheGrump, that you ran into this "bright spark" once before at ANI when he was all over the Dixiecrat article (among others).

There's been a lot of "water under the bridge" in my corner of the world of late. It has a flushing effect...

[Kraken]

Observation I closed the 2nd AFD so I won't be closing this one as I consider my participation involved. But reading this discussion over, it seems like some of the Delete votes, those who provide no policy basis for their opinion, seem like they are editors who are embarrassed at the existence of this article on Wikipedia, rather than due to a careful read of the article and analysis of its sources. It doesn't read like gossip, in fact, it discusses gossip as it pertains to this event but, in itself, it is not gossip. I think that claim also is a disservice to editors who contributed to the article who I think took pains to maintain an integrity and write about the subject with a NPOV. I am not arguing Keep or Delete as I think it would interfere with my work here as a closer, I'm just asking that those editors arguing for Deletion actually judge the merits of the article and not dismiss it because they find the subject distasteful and not in keeping with an online encyclopedia. Whether this article is Kept, Deleted, Redirected, Merged or Renamed, thanks to those participating editors here who kept their focus on policy-related aspects of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

What is NOT, if it's not about saying what is and "not in keeping with an online encyclopedia"?

For the purposes of an AfD, these votes carry equal weight....

* OMFG this is a disgusting article that brings shame on everyone involved in creating it. Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Joe

* Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jane.

* Delete per Jane.

One might not like the fact neither Jon and Jane have made the case that WP:NOTGOSSIP applies precisely, but plenty of others have. Some at extraordinary length and with much back and forth debate. As such, their meaning is easy to interpret. They have expressly rejected the idea that an article about gossip is not in keeping with an online encyclopedia. This is probably exactly why they find the article distasteful. That is context, not argument. And certainly not a nullification of their argument.

[Kraken]

Here is a summary of the necessary points to address, for a future closer. If you deviate from this, you can expect to have your close challenged, and indeed your honor besmirched.

* The raw vote count (easily won by Delete?). Yes, !vote. But you cannot overlook the fact this is the compete opposite of what usually happens when a bunch of ill-informed rubber-neckers descend on an AfD about a scandal that embarrasses The Man.

* The fact delete votes largely cite policy, the keep side only guidelines, and the back and forth debates didn't really shift anyone from their camps. No real way around that simple reality of Wikipedia. Stupid people shouldn't win serious debates through simple obstinancy.

* The fact you can count on one hand the number of people saying Princess Kate isn't deserving of the relative protection of BLP as a high profile individual given the specific context (she has committed no crime, she isn't a Lizard in a Human suit, she was put in a truly awful position by circumstances not of her own making, in a schism possibly fueled by Russian trolls, and she has quite literally zero current or even future political power)

* The fact a suitable article title seems as out of reach as ever (strongly indicative there is no viable topic here), so keep but rename here carries little weight (arguably just time wasting bullshit designed to game the system)

* The fact that in this context, keep but merge is more appropriately read as merge and delete given the BLP aspect, and given nobody has countered the observation anything that should be Merged, has been already.

* The fact there is no deadline and Wikipedia has a truly awful record when it comes to battling recentism. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so if the people arguing this will be of clear relevance in ten years time, they surely won't mind Wikipedia not having a full article on this until such time as academic sources with distance have emerged. It is noted nobody in that camp addressed the fact Wikipedia doesn't have similar articles where the subject and the controversy is so....unimportant. People gave a shit about Obama birther conspiracies as a cultural phenomenon because shit like that leads to shit like Trump if the mainstream media monetize it for clicks without thought to the consequences of their actions. It's almost laughable to compare that to this.

Your close should probably also rest heavily on common sense, since it does seem clear there is insufficient understanding among the community that this and always was a COATRACK. Yes, it is an essay. No, that doesn't mean it doesn't carry significant weight of policy. If you don't understand why, then I strongly advise you not to step into the fray. I don't like killing Bambi, but for My Queen, I would kill baby Jebus himself if she command me.

What is dead can never die.

[Kraken]

The future closer will need a deep knowledge of Wikipedia.

You appear to misunderstand NOTNEWS, which is meant to prevent articles on common incidents the receive coverage (for example, a one-off, small-time robbery of a non-notable bank). It does not preclude articles on news items. Otherwise, half the articles that make it to ITN wouldn't qualify for articles before they could no longer appear at ITN. You seem also confused about the purpose of an article like this. This isn't to repeat gossip, but to describe it and its impact as reliable sources have. Wikipedia routinely discusses gossip and conspiracy theories without simply repeating it. ~ Pbritti (tealk) 23:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

To many people that might look like a compelling and well argued opinion. To an expert in Wikipedia, it really is some repugnant bullshit. The editor probably isn't even knowingly lying. It's easy to make such erroneous conclusions when you simply don't understand what you are commenting on, namely Wikipedia, at such a fundamental level.

What should trouble Wikipedia as a project, is that this user isn't remotely what anyone would think of as a non-expert. They have relevant experience on and off world. On a superficial reading. Perhaps it's all a front, and this is the real issue caused by the ever decreasing number of active Administrators needed to wise these people up, with gentle reminders or swift hard corrections.

That of course being the clear reason this article came into existence in the first place, resulting in what is becoming a pretty massive complete waste of time, if the outcome ends in delete, which seems almost certain.

Honestly. When their presence is not helpful, the Admins who think being an Admin is about telling everyone to fuck off and go do something useful, are seemingly everywhere. When it would actually be a quite helpful opinion, they're nowhere to be seen.