Wikipedia Sucks!

Look at this bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... rek_Kukula

It is precisely thanks to the activism of clueless fucksticks like Jess Wade, who never gave a damn though about what they were doing or why, as they went about reframing the basic relationship between Wikipedia and the media, that we know fine well that under normal circumstances, a person like Marek Kukula would be nailed on for a Wikipedia biography.

A gay man with an ethnic sounding name, with a publc facing science education role in a very famous institution, with an apparently perfectly good career in science to back it up, working for notable universities and NASA, getting good grant funding.

He would be guaranteed a Wikipedia biography, no doubt about it, and a stroppy campaigning bitch like Jess Wade would have been screaming her damn head off, if anyone dared to say otherwise. I bet she's pissed she never got the chance to create it herself.

Because they would say otherwise, the traditionalists, the people who recall Wikipedia's role is to reflect coverage, not drive it. Because they would recognise this man, in terms of secondary coverage, was at the time, of little note, for good or bad.

He had somehow managed to get a Wikipedia biography back in 2009, even though whoever it was that wrote it (you can make an educated guess) had to work through the Articles for Creation gatekeepers. All he had going for him then, was local press coverage of him getting his big break in a prominent science education role.....

* Royal Observatory press release
* BBC London profile piece off the back of it

1/5

Jess Wade would have therefore been ecstatic to see this meagre coverage being augmented many years later when someone at The Guardian penned this piece....

How do I become......an astronomer?

Looming back, it seems pretty scary that this piece contained not one, but two mentions of how much fun he got from a particular aspect of his, uh, outreach work.

I had started as a researcher doing quite a lot of outreach work – talking to school kids, astronomy societies, WI groups, anyone who was interested in astronomy........It is extremely varied work. “I curate exhibitions about astronomy, I write books and I do a lot of TV and radio interviews, I get to talk to school kids, which is really good fun.

Fast forward to now, and thanks to a piece of ordinary every day reporting of criminal justice business from the Daily Mail......

* Greenwich Observatory's Public Astronomer, 49, who wrote book on science behind Dr Who downloaded 407 child porn images after googling 'pre-teen boy' and 'young boy sex'

....we know now that in the three year period between 2006 and 2009, y'know, when he was thinking about taking his career in a new direction, from scientist to science educator, he was......

Greenwich Observatory's Public Astronomer has admitted downloading 407 sick sexual images of boys.

Dr Marek Kukula blamed pressure on completing the writing of 'The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who' after turning to internet child porn.

Police raided his £780,000 flat in London Bridge, seizing 18 devices and finding the disgusting movie clips and still images on an old laptop and two USB sticks.

Clips included boys young as 10 being abused by older men and having sex with other youngsters.  

The 49-year-old is the observatory's official spokesman on astronomy and space science, having held senior research positions at UK universities and at NASA's Space Telescope Science Institute.

He pleaded guilty to making 34 Category A indecent images of a child; 107 Category B and 266 Category C indecent images on or before October 5, last year. He received a suspended prison sentence.

'You are a man of exceptional intelligence and academic and professional success,' Inner London Crown Court Judge Freya Newbery told him.

'You have excelled in your own field and you must be more disappointed than anybody to find yourself in this situation, but you have taken steps to put this all behind you to tackle your demons.'

At the Royal Observatory Greenwich he oversees science content and exhibitions and public programmes and is a spokesperson for the landmark institution.

He is also the author of 'The Intimate Universe' and while a project manager and researcher in residence at the University of Edinburgh he managed a national scheme to train young researchers and match them with secondary schools.

Prosecutor Rebecca Folks said officers armed with a search warrant told Kukula they suspected indecent images had been downloaded at the address.

2/5

'He said: "I'm gay and I have been chatting to people online."'

They found Kukula, who has a degree in Physics with Astrophysics, had downloaded and deleted the images between 2006 and 2009.

The worst material showed boys aged between 10 and 14 years-old having sex with each other and with adult men.

Kukula admits he clicked on search terms including: 'man boy sex' 'pre-teen boy' and young boy sex.'

'He has been open and honest he used the internet as a stress-reliever from work at the time. He was changing career, he was under financial pressure and was writing two books,' said Mr. Michael McAlinden, defending.

'To escape he started to binge on the net. He became addicted to surfing the internet and became addicted to pornography and unfortunately that addiction was the type of pornography you see.

'He is homosexual and looks at gay pornography. As he found to his cost searches revealed images that were not appropriate.

'He was not purposefully searching for Category A images and when he saw images of this type they were deleted.'

Kukula was sentenced to twenty-one weeks imprisonment, suspended for twelve months, must complete a sixty-day rehabilitation activity requirement and pay £535 costs.

He must obey a seven-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order, which limits his internet use and sign the sex offenders register for the same period.

'You used porn to deal with stress in the past during a difficult time for you,' the judge told him. 'You were looking at a lot of adult pornography, you got bored and got drawn into the underage pornography sites.'

Even if you choose to believe that cock and bull story about stress made him do it, and he only accidentally downloaded and then deleted the content, we still have a man here who applied for a job where he would get trusted access to impressionable minors, and indeed be in a position to introduce other men to them, without disclosing his digital history.

Unsurprisingly, all the outlets who hailed this man, have been silent. Which poses rather the problem for Wikipedia, given their ban on the Daily Mail.

3/5

Because in their fuckwitted wisdom, none of what I quoted to you above from the Mail, is usable on Wikipedia. You either have to assume it is made up, or you have to suspect it is true but is otherwise not relevant to their encyclopedia.

No exceptions are allowed. None. We know this. David Gerard and Guy Chapman and and Guy Macon and others, have fought and survived, on that very hill. The Community has spoken.

Oops.

Their only way out then, it seems, is to pretend like they would have never given this man a biography in the first place. That it was all just one giant mistake. That he is, in reality, not notable, and that is why the media never really took any notice of him, either as a scientist or as a science educator.

Obvious bullshit is obvious. They took no notice, because he was unworthy of notice. But Wikipedia would have rectified that, and did, for over a decde, they were doing just that. The Guardian profile was probably in part, a result of their efforts to be activists in this area, bringing prominence to those they think are being overlooked. Usually it's women, but as Jess Wade's history shows, minority males qualify for special treatment too, especially if they have not one, but two, special characteristics.

The less said about the frankly bizarre argument that it is the very fact the BBC and Guardian chose not to report on this conviction, shows he was not a notable figure, the better, since it absolutely flies in the face of them having previously thought him worthy of note, in a very limited way, as a person, rather than his more usual media appearances, as an expert to be quoted, which, if you know Jess Wade, is also often all that is needed to get a minority woman a Wikipedia biography.

Letting Jess Wade and her activist friends do whatever they want, has no doubt got Wikipedia into some right sticky situations before, and this is no exception.

If they delete him, they are part of a cover up, where they and the mainstream media decide that people don't have a right to know just how easy it is for pedophiles to obtain high profile roles, or how effective having tough internet laws can be, since it seems clear he was only caught as a result of warrants served on other, bigger, fish, to find out who they had been in contact with.

4/5

Being tough on pedophiles and the channels they use, is not a left wing priority, given that it necessarily impedes on what they perceive as 21st Century freedoms. The right to digital privacy. The right to hide your digital past from future employers.

If they keep him, they have to choose whether to leave his biography frozen in time, as if he still were in that role, or to use a source they utterly despise, to round it out and explain why he stopped being quoted, and presumably disappeared without trace from the world of science education, academia and publishing.

Stay tuned. If only to mock them for their rank stupidity. All they had to do, to avoid this bizarre situation of having a Schreodeinger pedophile on their hands, was to either not relax the notability requirements for academics in an effort to shape what the media writes about, and therefore what they write about, and/or not hold a flawed process to declare the Mail unreliable, in an effort to do the same, but via different means.

Rather hilarious to see Jess Wade herself, caught in that very trap, back when she must have heard on the science educator Twitter grapevine that one of her heroes was a pedo, and presumably wanted to update his biography to make sure The Guardian et al had the most up to date information at their fingertips in the Wikipedia minority scientist profile index card system....

I know that we can't cite The Sun or the Daily Mail, but I am concerned that someone with such a public position in astrophysics has recently been arrested for holding several hundred pictures of child pornography. I don't know how best to proceed and would appreciate help.

Jesswade88 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You can tell how concerned she was by the fact she even said anything, because ordinarily, Jess wade is a virtual mute on Wikipedia, never posting on talk pages at all if she can help it, not even to be polite and answer the most benign of questions, like, hey girl, wanna be an Administrator?

Perhaps the best sign yet that Wikipedia would rather help promote the career of a pedophile than protect children, are reverts like this.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =915509628

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854521729

Shout out to David Eppstein and Nikkimaria, two of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, who between them couldn't think of a better way to handle this, than what they did.

Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia apparently didn't need a source for this update....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854695072

....which is a nice reminder that Wikipedia can and will be an original publisher of original thought, when it really suits. Can't have their giant scientist roladex falsely claiming this man was still employed by the Royal Observatory, even if you can't actually back that up with a source you're prepared to name.

IAR in action? I doubt t it. Not least because to be claiming IAR, you have to say you are claiming IAR.

But anyway, good to see they can be an actual encyclopedia when they want to be. In some small way. An encyclopedia adjunt to LinkedIn, I guess. Now all that remains, is for them to be regulated like one.

5/5

Watch how some of the Wikishits are suddenly claiming there isn't enough detail about this man out there in reliable sources to write a biography, and so even though he is obviously notable by virtue of his role, he should be deleted. Shames.

Truth time. Time for a perfectly valid OTHERSTUFF argument, because the other stuff now amounts to over a 1,000 biographies written by a famous Wikipedia editor lauded for her talents at doing Teh Wiki. Has her own Wikipedia biography and everything!

You can glean as much about this man's life, specifically his education and career, as you can from the amount of mostly if not exclusively primary and non-independant sources used by Jess Wade to construct her giant pile of roladex entries.

As usual, the wikishits are changing the rules of the game, to suit the desired objectives. They want to hide what they are and what they do, because they fear the inevitable consequences. Bad publicity. Chiefly around them failing the basic questions - what is your mission, and how do you acheive it? And does what you just said, make any fucking sense to the non retarded?

They do want to write profiles of little noticed academics, based on limited amounts of genuine secondary coverage. Just not when they turn out to be pedos. Then the limitations of someone having limited secondary coverage, are suddenly somehow a big problem.

Double dealing shite talking ass wipes.

Little pissant cowards afraid to and indeed unable to explain themselves in an arena they can't control.

The very sort of people that can be found on Wikipediocracy, don't forget. Literally that very person, the aptly named Major Pants.

Way to sell out Jake, you worthless piece of shit.

Typical Wikipediocracy poster sez.......

we don't even have any indication he's ever done any important research, and barely enough to summarize his pedigree. 

Royal Observatory sez......

The Royal Observatory Greenwich (ROG) has appointed distant galaxies and quasar expert, Dr Marek Kukula as its new Public Astronomer .....Dr Kevin Fewster, Director at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich said: ‘Marek brings considerable breadth of experience to the Royal Observatory. His impressive scientific resume,.....gives the Royal Observatory, Greenwich a respected and capable public representative.....Specialising in the study of supermassive black holes and the evolution of galaxies, Marek has 15 years of science research in UK universities, including five years as a PPARC Advanced Fellow at the University of Edinburgh’s Institute for Astronomy and two years at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, home of NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope...... As a researcher he has successfully secured over £500,000 in research grants from the UK and US governments as well as time on the Hubble Space Telescope and other international observatories worth several £million

Welcome to Wikipedia. Bullshitters gonna bullshit.

Jake is a sellout mother fucker for acting like the Wikishits he gives succour to, need to be protected from these very simple truths.

geez, man, take a xanax and watch some netflix or smth.

Well, OF COURSE the Wikiots don't care about Kukula's sexual hangups/criminal conviction. The Sun and Daily Mail broke the story. Therefore, FAKE NEWS.

For completeness here's the AFD. The usual river of blinding stupidity, complete with the lovely Andy Mabbett spluttering. Yech. The fucksticks will delete this article, not because he's "not notable"; because he's a slightly prominent scientist who embarrassed other scientists by collecting kiddy porn. Therefore "reality must be edited" or shit like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... rek_Kukula

Amazing where these things lead sometimes.....

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2029#p20025

Sick fuckers.

PS, do these count as "reliable sources"?

https://www.ibbclaims.co.uk/site/servic ... offenders/
https://uk-database.net/2018/07/28/marek-kukula-london/

In America sex offenders are aggressively and publicly humiliated, "by law". Apparently UK law is more "solicitous". Whatta joke.