Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:20 am

Wikipedians. Meet your new community representative on the Board of Trustees.

You perhaps know her as the Founder of the Women In Red Project, and so I hope you don't judge her too harshly for having perhaps benefitted rather hugely from personally placing this notice on that project's talk page......
Voting period ends 31 August

Did you know... that there are 19 candidates for the 4 available seats in the 2021 WMF Board of Trustees election? View candidate statements, verify your eligibility and vote now. The voting period ends 31 August. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe its just my pesky common sense view of Wikipedia policy, but this seems to be a slam dunk violation of the rules against canvassing. Yes, she was neutral, and yes, she didn't steer anyone to vote for her, but the clear and obvious violation here comes from the mere act of posting it.

To any reasonable person, they're not going to see the specific reason why this specific project needed to be notified of a community wide election, and they're going to obviously understand that the vast majority of that project's membership have a good impression of Rosie, and would probably vote for her, rather than any of her opponents.

My layperson's understanding of the complicated STV system they used this year, is that at the crucial round, the difference between Rosie being dumped out of the race in 5th place and soaring to victory in 1st as she did, was a mere 157 votes, from a total number of 6,873 votes. The WIR project has nearly 500 members, and that's not everyone who ever joined, that's members active in the last month alone.

It's moot now, because she won. And I'm quite sure the entire Wikipedia community wont care a damn about this blatant breach of a fundamental communtiy rule by their newest "representative" on the Board, because who in their right mind is going to put their testicles in the vice and suffer the wrath of the Wiki Women?

And I say that as an avowed supporter of all things feminist, as my record shows. Women should not be getting special treatment on Wikipedia just because they are women, given broad freedom to break rules that men couldn't break, simply because they're women.

Jess Wade is of course the most obvious example. People are absolutely dreaming if they think a man could get away with quite deliberately choosing, on a LITERAL daily basis, not to properly source her BLP content. Sentences that directly speak to a subject's notability (education, awards etc) or fundamental identity (nationality, family etc), be they positive, negative or neutral, MUST have a references and it MUST be in the form of an inline citation at the end of the very sentence it supports. It being nearby, or a mere Google search away, is not good enough.

That is the rule, and it exists for only one reason - any kind of deviation from from this precise editorial standard, ESPECIALLY for the sort of lesser known individuals that Jess Wade exclusively writes about, exposes the subject to greater risk of harm. It also theoretically exposes Wikipedia to legal liability for said harm, but only after Wikipedia has been properly notified.

The rule is clear. If Jess wade refuses to properly source her articles even after she is notified of her failure, you are well within your rights to file a formal complaint and remove any and all unsourced content she is responsible for.

That is that theory. In practice, such is the Wikipedia community's fear of the Wiki Women, you're simply going to get blocked for "harassment". Worse, you will note from the Catherine Chesla case, it has already been proven with a real world example, and there is absolutely no reason to think it was an outlier, that the Wikipedia Administration, in this case Ymblanter, are perfectly prepared to ignore properly worded BLP complaints and revert an article to the BLP violating state Jess Wade published it in, if they think that is what they need to do to keep Jess Wade happy and content.

Wade is indeed happy and content, living her charmed life, and a very unusual one for a Wikipedia editor. In a word, she's a fucking freak. She does almost nothing except grind away at her self set task, and studiously ignores pretty much all attempts by other Wikipedia editors to engage with her. She doesn't even thank those who offer her fawning praise. So much for collaboration and community. But hey, those aren't mandatory.

Sadly for Wikipedia, neither is fixing your own mistakes. There are a handful of complete losers out there who think they're helping humanity by silently trailing in Jess Wade's wake, tagging her unsourced statements with {citation needed}. It's quite pathetic. It's also very ineffective. Those tags simply get ignored, for months or even years.

The most effective way to deal with an absolute cunt like Jess Wade, and I am using that gendered insult perfectly correctly, because it fits her to a tee, is to do what Wikipedia policy says you must do in cases of willful negligence. If polite reminders of basic policy don't work, and if sterner warnings then haven't worked, then you really have no other option. It's time to start blocking.

It's a simple and effective system of ensuring user compliance, assuming everyone is working toward the same goal - doing what benefits Wikipedia. To simply say to her....

"Jess, you are indefinitely prevented from adding BLP content to Wikipedia unless or until you accept what the minimum standard for sourcing these kind of statements is. Do you understand and accept that standard, and will you apply it going forward?"

...and wait for her response. Hopefully she doesn't do what she often used to do, lose her fucking shit and start accusing anyone and everyone of sexism and generally being an entitled brat playing buzzword bingo. Her subsequent transition into a relative mute suggests she is probably still that same person, she's just learnt that while that can often help her, it does harm her, even when she has won.

If she says yes, she can be unblocked. If she then carries on doing it, you can just ban her, because she is clearly either too stupid to be a Wikipedia editor, or more likely, she really doesn't think this rule is worth following, if not in general, then in her case.

Because it's been obvious for a while that the only reason she doesn't follow the rule, is because it takes time. Time she can't afford, given her self set goal to add one biography to Wikipedia a day. A goal she clearly set herself before she fully understood how much time it takes to edit Wikipedia properly.

And this is where we recall that the basic reason WIR was created by Rosie, is to raise the number of women biographies on women. On the raw numbers, if you don't examine the quality and don't think about the mountain of problems she is adding, at a rate faster than anyone is fixing them, Wade is doing that. The media pieces have slavishly reported each milestone, without knowing the real story.

So now we're at the heart of the matter. Wikipedia has always had a problem with knowing how to deal with an editor who is knowingly breaking the rules but knows that their record of good edits somehow cancels out their really bad edits, and Administrators usually can't find the courage needed to block them, given the inevitable blowback. And that's just ordinary internally popular editors, not rock star celebrity editors like Wade, with the media and an influential project like WIR behind her. And now perhaps even the ear of the Board.

Usually it was a man who benefitted from this phenomenon of the Vested Contributor problem, because being that kind of an asshole is a typically male trait. So it is perhaps refreshing and disturbing, to see a woman taking advantage of this systemic fault, rather than being a shining beacon of good conduct. And doing it rather well too, since unlike the men, who would typically have to fight very hard to benefit from their Vested status, Jess Wade hasn't had to do anything. Well, not nothing.

She has merely had to exist, have a vagina, and fraudulently present herself as a good Wikipedia editor, better than most in fact. Seriously, she said that. Which rather shows what she really is. She presents herself as an experienced editor, and she undoubtedly has veteran status. She has called herself an Ambassador. And yet when it comes down to it, she doesn't want to be measured against her mostly male peers. She wants to be measured agasint the average editor. And Wikipedia being what it is, where the bar for entry is set very low, the average is not much to be shouting about.

Maybe it's because she's a Millennial, raised in a culture where mere participation and effort is worthy of praise, not measurable results or even simple competency.

Fuck that shit.

Equality means what it says. The bar doesn't get lowered just because you're a woman. And whether she likes it or not, and clearly she does not, Wikipedia's best editors, while they would still probably never get hired by Brittanica, would rather cut their own balls off or ovaries out than be thought to be so incompetent or negligent that they would commit the sort of fundamental failure to properly source a BLP statement, that Jess Wade is guilty of every day. Literally every day.

It's a minimal standard for a reason. You're meant to be embarrassed, ashamed, if not ABSOLUTELY FUCKNG MORTIFIED, if you're an experienced and committed Wikipedia "editor", to be thought of as incapable of meeting even the minimum standard. You would probably kill yourself if you thought other people thought you were doing it deliberately. That's what it used to mean, being part of the Wikipedia community, for all its faults.

Jess Wade changed all that. Inspired by Rosie, evidently. It should have been identified and rectified years ago. There was never any reason why working for the feminist cause on Wikipedia should have become a byword for being as bad if not worse than the men. And maybe Jess really is just one bad apple. But WIR is nothing if not one heck of a big and watertight barrel in the Wikipedia warehouse. If they want their own house, they should be the ones to clean it. 'Ain't no Mexicans on Wikipedia to help the privileged white women be all they can be in, as we know.

But Wikipedia, rather its handful of advanced rights holders, has made its choice. Pigs will fly before Jess Wade gets blocked now. They've gone too far down this road, let her appear on far too many fawning and fraudulent media articles which wholly misrepresent her record and Wikipedia generally. They simply can't afford the bad PR of Jess Wade being blocked now. Questions would be asked. Questions they don't want answered.

I can only speculate how much Rosie knows about any of this naked corruption in the name of the project she founded. She could be masterminding the whole thing, issuing threats and giving Jess all possible assistance, or she could be entirely oblivious and this is all just the men of Wikipedia figuring out what will be in ther best interests and acting accordingly. Aggressively protecting the women, but more importantly, their own image. Nobody can know, because everything involving Jess Wade is handled in secret.

The majority of Wikipedia editors are still clearly male and still clearly sexist. They just don't like people thinking they are, it having become a media story thanks to Rosie, so props for that at least. And so having Jess Wade, with Rosie's help presumably, popping up here there and everywhere, giving the impression that Wikipedia is changing, is seen as a good thing by the apes.

It's all kind of sad really, because the only thing Rosie and Jess are actually changing, is content, and even then, only in a minuscule way. There's been no appreciable change in the community, whether in terms of gender balance, or overall levels of toxcitiy/aggression. They have admitted it themselves. Women recruited in WIR sponsored editations, once they stop having their hand held and are released into the wild west, get the shock of their lives, and run for the hills, never to be seen again.

Wikipedia is still after all, as of literally right now, a community where it is considered perfectly acceptable to tell another user, multiple users multiple times even, to fuck off. And what's the easiest and most readily accepted way for a man to get a woman to fuck off and leave his shit alone? Tell her to fuck off and leave his shit alone, and baselessly threaten her with dire consequences if she doesn't.

It's a long read, but that's the essential takeaway from a recent Wired story about one woman's experience of being a Wikipedia editor.

https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans- ... -wikipedia

As that story shows, you need to be a particular kind of woman to face down that obvious bullying, and deliver a mighty kick to the testicles. Sadly, this isn't all that common a trait in women. Evolution is a bitch, right?

Hence why WIR exists, seemingly. It's more than a mere platform for coordination. It's a Safe Space. In other words, under the leadership of Rosie, the women of Wikipedia have essentially accepted that the community as a whole cannot be reshaped and they will never truly be comfortable just walking any random street.

They have developed coping strategies at least. Namely, if they can't be equals, they can use their perceived disadvantage as an advantage, and play the women card.

I don't think Rosie is as blatant in how she uses her gender as a tool of manipulation as Jess is, but this blatant canvassing is one example that she is perhaps very similar to Jess in that she perhaps either genuinely doesn't know she violated the canvassing rule (and never will if the community never finds the balls or the ovaries to tell her), or even worse, she does know she was skirting the rules for her own self interest, but she did it any way, because she knows she can, because she's a tiny defenceless little women.

Wikipedia is what it is, what you see today is their warped idea of what equality and feminism is, because the community are still nakedly corrupt, and the nominal investigators of this corruption, Wikipediocracy, have themselves been corrupted by these very same forces.

I shit you not, the official Wikipediocracy line is that Jess Wade isn't doing anything wrong and I'm an incel for having even noticed she's quite the Special Little Flower in terms of the extreme measures the Wikipedia community are now prepared to go to shield her from being held accountable for her own actions.

And now we shall see, if Wikipediocracy find the courage to keep registering their opinion (but I suspect that with this canvassing violation I have found something that will see them revert to type and simply ignore things which they find inconvenient to their desired narratives), then what excuse they will offer up for Rosie?

Has she really done nothing wrong here? Did I spot this violation and note it here because I am annoyed she won't sleep with me?!?!? Damn. To be rejected by Jess, I was crushed, but her wiki mother too? I am understandably distraught. Not.

Come on lads, you can say it if you want. If you think it's going to get you laid (or even paid) that is.

:ugeek:

HTD.

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: Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:32 pm

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:20 am
It's a long read, but that's the essential takeaway from a recent Wired story about one woman's experience of being a Wikipedia editor.
https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans- ... -wikipedia
I dunno, maybe you should have led with this? Ksenia has had her user name changed several times due to the constant abuse. Something NOT mentioned in WIRED, as usual.

Right in the sidebar of the WIRED article is this crap. Well, which is it, you twats?
screenshot-www.wired.com-2021.09.09-16_09_15.png
screenshot-www.wired.com-2021.09.09-16_09_15.png (27.1 KiB) Viewed 1718 times
One should also ask Kierzek why he's soooo very fond of talking about Nazi Germany. The same for Alex1011. They “took turns” pwning the Nebe article until Coffman showed up in 2015. Now SHE pwns it.

This whole thing will be difficult to chart out, because so many people messed around here. Look at the weird disjointed crap on the talkpage. Most of the "convenient misquoting" of sources occurred quite a while ago.

The WMF owes Coffman a CONSIDERABLE amount of credit. I don't see anyone thanking her for removing Nazi Germany "history rewriting" on their damn encyclothing.

And I'm not gonna talk about Rosiestep because we would be here for months. Suffice to say, I think she's a little weird--making her perfect for the WMF Board.

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

Re: Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:37 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:32 pm
I dunno, maybe you should have led with this? Ksenia has had her user name changed several times due to the constant abuse. Something NOT mentioned in WIRED, as usual..
Ask and ye shall receive.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =10&t=2214

Although I actually wrote that before I even read this. :lol:

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: Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:12 am

If I could contact Coffman I'd offer her a copy of the book notes. At least she would find them "amusing" maybe.

Wait, wasn't this thread "supposedly-mostly" about Rosie?

Post Reply