The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
Joe Crow
Sucks
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Post by Joe Crow » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:15 am

cont...
A Numpty Incel wrote:
You are, officially, on Kumioko's level. :oops:

And in many ways, weren't you always?

Hilarious. :lol:

Now I think on it, irony of ironies, you may be about to tread a path last trod by none other than Abd himself, in more ways than one. I do hope that doesn't make things awkward between you and Vigilant, or those over there who appointed you as a Mod presumably not for their own amusement. But rest assured, I will be on hand, with the sand. :ugeek:

That's how you two like it, isn't it?

No judgements here. :)

Suffice to say, and don't cry too much Vigilant, but the dissimilarity between those who you try to compare me to, because you're a weak man who won't face me on the battle field, and who I actually am, on the fucking daily, is growing wider and wider. And on the flip side, the similarities between them and those you seek the approval and comfort of, grows narrower.

People people people. Why you no listen when I preach? I have a talent for prediction, clearly.

I am not so clever as to have aligned the stars to achieve such a thing as these divergent/convergent paths, I just do what I do. But you know for damn sure, I can exploit it. As is my other talent. ;)

Are you with me Micheal!?!?!

LET'S GO!


(I'm not putting all the smileys back in for you, Mick)

User avatar
rog
Sucks Fan
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am
Location: the dark and nasty regions
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Post by rog » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:20 am

So, Mick, are you going to flounce like you did when Madam Gender bleeped your swears on reddit?
Or are you going act like a big boy and do the right thing for once?

You are sullying the good name of true Hastener-the-Dayers such as myself.

Lucky for you, I am highly qualified in the dark arts of subliminal thought-correction and remote neural pathway-reprogramming.
It won't hurt a bit. Think of it as a struggle smiley session. Ok?


Now, first things first. Repeat after me:


Jess Wade is a lovely person and a net benefit to Wikipedia and the world in general

:)

User avatar
rog
Sucks Fan
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am
Location: the dark and nasty regions
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Post by rog » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:49 am

Jake is a sellout wrote:All I see is a guy who desperately wants to delete my posts, but is too chicken shit to actually do so.......


Not sure where the rest of that post went, Mick.

Sorry.

User avatar
rog
Sucks Fan
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am
Location: the dark and nasty regions
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Post by rog » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:57 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:53 am
Jess Wade is a lovely person [when she wants wants be] and a net benefit to Wikipedia [given the low bar and PR benefit] and the world in general [since her not doing actual science is probably a good thing]
So close, Mick.

I had to bin some of your usual fruitcakery, and your bedside manner still needs some work.
But a good first attempt. Well done!

User avatar
rog
Sucks Fan
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am
Location: the dark and nasty regions
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Post by rog » Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:59 am

A fart in the wind wrote:
Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:54 am
rog wrote:
Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:49 am
Jake is a sellout wrote:All I see is a guy who desperately wants to delete my posts, but is too chicken shit to actually do so.......

Not sure where the rest of that post went, Mick.
Sorry.



It's in the folder marked "stuff rog can delete but doesn't actually go anywhere, because we don't really trust him with the power to actually delete stuff"



Who said that?

:lol:

User avatar
Joe Crow
Sucks
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Crow droppings

Post by Joe Crow » Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:10 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:08 am
........................................................................................................................................................

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Crow droppings

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:12 am

Joe Crow wrote:
Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:10 am
Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:08 am
........................................................................................................................................................

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:31 pm

Crow, old salt, you DO know there are medications that can help you, right?

Perhaps I should post more furry porn. Furry porn is hilarious because it's so random and bizarre. Like the Crow.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sat Dec 18, 2021 6:36 pm

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:46 am
We cannot change how the past has given little respect to minority groups, nor is it our place to make this an issue (per WP:RGW). --Masem (t) 05:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
As was made starkly obvious in the debacle concerning why an eminently worthy woman like Monisha Shah can't be granted the recognition of a Wikipedia biography, it is widely known that WP:GNG, the rule that nominally stopped it, is a racist construct.

It's as racist as America itself.

America at least, supposedly, is trying to change. Wikipedia, not so much.

Wikipedia is perhaps the last place for true, unashamed American racists, to live up to the ideals of their forefathers, without having to meet in secret and wear fancy robes. Although I guess you could say that the freedom to register as anonymous randoms like "Masem" is a hood of sorts.

The alleged Wikipedia critics and investigators Wikipediocracy won't be tackling this issue any time soon, in large part because they are Wikipedians too. They led the charge against Shah's biography on Wikipedia, and delighted in their success, disgusting animals that they are.

WP:RGW is as good a piece of rules wonkery as anything else they have to justify their inbuilt racism. It's a finely crafted piece of work that lays out the truth. Wikipedia blames other people for their constructs and resulting content being racist. The media, primarily. And as is well known, a large resson for why Wikipedia quicky went from successful novelty to soul sucking suckness, was the explosion in rules wonkery.

Note however that in Shah's case, quite contrary to their own established rules, media coverage of Shah by the Asian Exress, was presumed unreliable by default. This is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia treats publications that cater to their preferred audience, whitey McWhiteFace, whose unreliability has to be proven if you want to eliminate them from consideration. So maybe that whole blame the media stuff is just a cover.

There is of course no real logic to this oft trotted out line that Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows. Wikipedia leads in all kinds of ways. It's own existence showed it wanted to lead in this bizarre idea that you don't need any of the usual things required to write an encyclopedia. Nowadays you can't move in this world for rank amateurs thinking they can do shit better than the professionals. It's no coincidence that in the lifetime of a Wikipedia, the world has well and truly gone to fucking shit. You won't see that being said on Wikipediocracy either.

What this Wikishit Masem has said of course, is bollocks. The real irony of Wikipedia's rules wonkery, is that there is a rule there that would quite quickly allow Wikipedia to stop being racist. Looking back to a more sensible time when Wikipedia was under the sole control of a few smart individuals who had settled on a simple mission, they encoded the concept of WP:IAR.

This "ignore all rules" doctrine is beautifully simple. If a rule stops you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. What better way for Wikipedia to improve itself, than to stop being a racist encyclopedia?

This is no call for anarchy either. IAR has never been a license for anarchy, or a free pass for crazy bastards to to their crazy shit. You do actually have to be trying to improve Wikipedia, rather than furthering your own interests, for it to be a valid invocation of IAR. People will still whinge, but fuck them. Racists will always whine if you're trying to make their pristine canvas a little more colourful.

It requires leadership to ensure those whines are just that, and that might be a problem. Since for years, ever since Jimmy Wales unwisely handed day to day control of volunteers to the volunteers, their elected leaders have never really covered themselves in glory, ideals wise.

The Almighty Arbitration Committee is unsurprisingly quite unwilling to displease the masses, this being the only aspect of Wikipedia governance that is constituted by secret ballot. Just like the American South, if you want to democratically elect racists but pretend it's something else, if not stay silent as to your motives, well, you can. Similarly if you want to punish anyone who might do a silly thing with their elected power like try to ensure Wikipedia isn't racist.

Wikipediocracy again won't be much help here. Several members of the Arbitration Committee hang out there, most notably one of the most disreputable, and if you were thinking that means you can challenge them freely on matters of principle and personal conduct, think again. The bloke who runs the place, Jake, doesn't like it when you annoy his preferred customers. Think of it as a white's only bar.

Governance issues aside, Wikipedia can stop being racist tomorrow, and still be in full compliance with its most fundamental rule, WP:V, or verifiability. The rule which states nothing on Wikipedia can be your own work or that of some other random know nothing dipshit. It has to come from somewhere else, a reliable source. This is what really prevents it from being just another pile of shite on the internet, or at least it would, if they had ever seriously put any effort into it.

And wouldn't you know, since the world isn't currently half as racist as Wikipedia, and arguably hasn't been for a good fifty years, meaning people like Shah can now serve in the highest levels of public life, It is entirely possible to write a Wikipedia biography for Shah using reliable sources. The same goes for any number of other subjects and topics relating to minorities.

And yet, Wikipedia chooses not to.

Why? Because they're massive racists.

The worst kind of racists. The people who know fine well there is no other rational explanation for their racism, but try to offer one anyway. And in a movement which is built very much like a cult, whereby you can't really change anything unless you have already shown loyalty to their most cherishly held concepts, such as the inherently racist GNG, this pretty much guarantees the racism is locked in.

Similar aspects of American governance were done away with over decades of struggle, through marches, civil disobedience and occasionally even violence. None of which is remotely applicable to Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, such things very much have to be done with the cooperation and approval of whitey.

And even if you do join and toil away for five or ten years before trying to effect change, the moment you say a heretical thing like GNG is racist, you will be expelled. Well, not quite. They do wisely not reveal their true colours so brazenly. Got to keep those donor dollars rolling in. Like an unreconstructed America, they'll allow you to say it, as long as you say it quietly and not too often.

But if you get loud, and especially if you try to actually do something about it, that's when the pitchforks will be out. Wikipedia's racism isn't as hidden as you might think. For years, they have dealt with people who are disruptive with the charmingly racist phrase, give them enough rope. The whole system of volunteer governance is no more developed or just than the Old West. They proudly state, like it's a good thing, that on Wikipedia, there is no justice. Quite.

You won't hear this being said on Wikipediocracy either, because they're also not the sort of people who want more visibility for minority figures and topics on Wikipedia. Their user base is as white, western and male as Wikipedia's. And for all that some of them have come a cropper against it, on matters where it would make Wikipedia a less racist and more just place, their thoughts on what makes for good governance, are no different to that of the Wikipedians. If anything, judging by who flourishes on that forum, they want more jackbooted thugs and less due process in Wikipedia.

You'll not be hearing Wikipediocracy loudly campaigning for a minority voice on the Arbitration Committee, for example, just like they've never really been all that outraged that the number of women on the Committee topped out at four of fifteen at the height of the media coverage of Wikipedia's sexism problem, and has only gone backwards in subsequent elections (you don't need to wait for the results of this year's election to know this is still the case, there is only one woman, and she's not a new face either).

You sadly also won't hear this on the likes of The Guardian or Slate, or indeed any publication that sources its coverage of Wikipedia solely from official Wikipedia sources, be that the body corporate or the volunteer editors, both of whom find it most convenient to have someone else to blame for their racism.

Maybe times are about to change, since Shah is not some random nobody, they're the new head of Wikimedia UK, Wikipedia's official charity representative in Her Majesty's United Kingdom. But since that body, much like the UK government itself, has virtually no control over either what the American headquarted body corporate does, and even less influence over what volunteer editors do, I fear this will prove to be the most miserable and soul destroying role Shah has ever undertaken.

And the Wikipedians will be just fine with that, you can count on it.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: The depressing reality of Wikipedia's in built and apparently unfixable racism

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Dec 19, 2021 10:06 pm


Post Reply