Wikipediocrat's hilarious attempt to be woke allies to black folk

Dedicated to one of the WMF's "finest persons"
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 154 times

Wikipediocrat's hilarious attempt to be woke allies to black folk

Post by ChaosMeRee » Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:50 am

This (and subsequent replies) was pretty disturbing...... ... 06#p339322

Since Wikipedia's total failure to address it's glaring systemic biases is a specialist area of mine, it raised a few glaring questions.....

Absent any, y'know, black Wikipedia editors, who is more qualified to help Wikipedia correct its systemic bias when it comes to black topics on Wikipedia?

* This white male Assistant Professor in the Anthropology Department of St Mary's College of Maryland

* This white female Lecturer in Functional Materials in the Department of Materials at Imperial College London

Who is the more competent Wikipedia editor?

* Someone with 15 edits to Wikipedia and allegedly doesn't know how to check the history of a Wikipedia article

* Someone with 7,524 edits to Wikipedia and yet for example (there are many others) definitely knows how to categorise a biography but deliberately posts them to Wikipedia without categories?

Who is more entitled to say they are part of Wikipedia outreach efforts?

* Someone who reviews student editor's work to see if they have tried to add content to Wikipedia that is well written, properly sourced, was their original work and properly integrated into the encyclopedia?

* Someone who supposedly inspires others by actually adding content that is poorly written, skirts the very edges of close paraphrasing (an inherent feature of their chosen source material), often lacks a given source at all, and is always posted as a standalone entity with poor outgoing links an zero incoming links from other Wikipedia pages.

Who is the more polite, cooperative, and communicative Wikipedia editor when approached by a volunteer Wikipedia editor with a direct report of serious errors that they hold personal responsibility for?

* The guy who did this..... ... _Americans

* The gal who did this..... ... ple_people (no, I didn't make a linking mistake, there was no reply, ever, not even here or here)

Who is more committed to improving Wikipedia?

* Someone who works for a recognised non-profit with a clear goal of combining academia with Wikipedia

* A volunteer editor who works alone (literally) and gleefully told the media they planned to write one Wikipedia biography a day until she had changed the world, but who has quietly abandoned this target without giving a reason (probably because it reflects poorly on her and Wikipedia) and is now posting markedly smaller biographies at a far reduced rate (but whose university profile regarding this effort, has not been updated and still says "daily").

Who is more liable to face accusations of conflict of interest? Or just stand accused of having a very poor understanding of bias in general?

* Someone whose public and professional profile is inherent!y linked to their alleged efforts to rid Wikipedia of its glaring systemic biases, but who also wrote the the Wikipedia biography of the black female COO of Wikipedia (something she decided to do after she met them in person at a Wikipedia event). Note that said COO soon left Wikipedia, stating they could do more for black folk elsewhere, a fact that curiously hasn't been included in her Wikipedia biography.

* Someone who, well, isn't and didn't

Who is more likely to be "grifting"?

* Someone who gets paid a known salary for measurable outputs

* Someone who edits Wikipedia for free in their spare time but whose editing has brought them a level of exposure and whole host of opportunities that they presumably otherwise wouldn't have had? Even a medal.


Hopefully it is clear, yet again, that Jess Wade is living a very charmed life on Wikipedia, up to and including as compared to others doing similar work for similar reasons.

What this also seems to show is that Wikipediocracy could care less. Jess's shortcomings are not only never mentioned on Wikipediocracy, they go the other way, and actually praise her for her efforts.

They reserve their criticism solely for people like this male academic.

The reason is obvious. Wikipediocracy is not an independent platform. It is a platform for Wikipedia volunteers to air their grievances, and in many instances their grievances are directed toward the hand that feeds, the Foundation, who they blame for a variety of ills. And by extension, related professional entities, such as WikiEdu.

Wikipediocracy will never criticise Jess Wade, because she is one of them.

Wikipediocracy will always target WikiEdu people, because they are not.

Note that you will not find a single instance of the Wikipedia editor Yngvadottir seen in the links above, who is a regular reader of Wikipediocracy, and quite literally protests against the Foundation with every single edit, ever approaching Jess Wade with feedback and queries, such as "why didn't you respond here?" or any of the other things that are expected and required of any Wikipedia editor.

Post Reply