ericbarbour wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:02 pm
Have a big fat dose of unreadable long article AND a perfect example of Wikipedia trying to practice "social justice". Badly as usual. The presence of The Anome and Andy Mabbett in the early history are dead giveaways. Not sure anyone ever reads this pile of feces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_P ... ce_scandal
The vast bulk of which was the work of this guy. He loves boats but nowadays seems to be even more obsessed with the post office scandal. Been grinding the hell out of it for the past few months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jacksoncowes
And BTW, this shitty article was originally called "Horizon", after the crummy ICL-Fujitsu software system that caused the scandal. Yes kids: hundreds of UK Post Office employees had their lives ruined by bad software. Wikipedians are "experts" in this area, aren't they?
Said article was originally created by that noted high-quality nitwit Richard Symonds, who was
desysopped and resigned from Wikimedia UK shortly thereafter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =654039489
You need a soul and a solid sense of morality to dedicate yourself to a task like that, and do it well.
Wikipedia editors just don't have it in them, and they have singularly failed to convince people like me, who do, that we would want to play any part in their fucked up project.
Can anyone seriously imagine an absolute scumbag like Beeblebrox even having any empathy for the people harmed in this scandal, let alone wanting to foster an environment where Wikipedia can play its part in properly addressing the injustice, without verging into activism?
Dream on. He's a piece of shit.
And it says everything about the people who call Wikipediocracy home, and those those run it, that their evident desire and indeed perhaps their natural instinct, is not to take a shovel to his head, but actually suck his dick.
This is how Wikipedia got where it is today. You can understand their failings, much of it is borne of the basic human failings after all, but it is less easy to understand the failings of alleged critics.
This is why someone like Jess Wade can do what she does, because Wikipediocracy doesn't cry foul and raise awareness, they laugh it off and cheer her on.
So what if Clarice Phelps never actually did what Wikipedia claims she did. Who cares if she hasn't actually got a notable first as a back woman in science. So what if Wikipedia probably only says that because a crime has been committed, it's a FACT now.
I mean, come on. The parallels between the how's and indeed whys of the way the government and Post Office fought to defend themselves here, and the way Wikipedia governing class and their Wikipediocracy enablers have fought to cover up the precise paper trail of how a claim Jess Wade initially sourced to Expert @ Twitter, and yet never actually appeared in print as promised, and then months later somehow got added back into Wikipedia with a "reliable source" to back it up, are clear and obvious.
That claim that Clarice Phelps has a notable first as a black woman scientist is a FACT now.
Just like it was a FACT, for so many years, that all these people in this scandal, were fraudsters.
You can ignore, bullshit, lie, sue, and generally try to cover your own asses, but as in all things, the truth always outs, eventually.
Some people don't just need to face serious consequences for their actions, they need to actually kill themselves. And even then, it probably won't redress the imbalance.
HTD.