In a brief moment of clarity, a rant pushes the Wikipedia community into realising David Gerard is a piece of shit
Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 2:22 am
Hopefully in light of this empassioned plea for sanity, which surprisingly worked, people will start examining Gerard's conduct around the sham Daily Mail ban, which in his manner of defending and progressing it, is characterised by all the same sorts of evasion and deflection and hostility and general bully boy get out of my way you peasant I Am Wikipedia bullshit.
Then again, pigs might fly.
Still, interesting to note that the primary institigators of the Daily Mail ban are all either currently (Cockram, Gerard) or soon to be (Chapman, if RexxS is to be a precedent) subject to the sort of community sanctions which call their basic integrity into question.
These people freely lied for reasons of personal politics, these people knowingly organised and pushed through a sham process of "consensus" that has nothing useful to say about the Mail to anyone who actually has an academic interest in the reliability of the print media, or indeed, a grounding in any academic discipline whatsoever. Unless, as many in academia do, they too simply hate the Mail for its editorial stance, and would sell their grandmother if they thought there was a way to abuse Wikipedia to harm it (and sadly for them, results so far beyond the Wikipedia fish bowl, are not promising).
I am tempted to say these downfalls are karma in action, but more likely, it's merely the end product of them feeling so confident at what they managed to pull of with that masquerade, they flew too close to the Sun, and forgot that while Wikipedia doesn't have many actual ethics driving its mission, it does typically draw the line somewhere. Somewhere just before pedophilia advocacy, to give you an idea of the sort of person the appropriately named Micheal Cockram was. Gerard was using Wikipedia to call an extrrnal enemy of his a white supremacist, and all he got was a slap on the wrist, and got to keep his Admin role.
Then again, pigs might fly.
Still, interesting to note that the primary institigators of the Daily Mail ban are all either currently (Cockram, Gerard) or soon to be (Chapman, if RexxS is to be a precedent) subject to the sort of community sanctions which call their basic integrity into question.
These people freely lied for reasons of personal politics, these people knowingly organised and pushed through a sham process of "consensus" that has nothing useful to say about the Mail to anyone who actually has an academic interest in the reliability of the print media, or indeed, a grounding in any academic discipline whatsoever. Unless, as many in academia do, they too simply hate the Mail for its editorial stance, and would sell their grandmother if they thought there was a way to abuse Wikipedia to harm it (and sadly for them, results so far beyond the Wikipedia fish bowl, are not promising).
I am tempted to say these downfalls are karma in action, but more likely, it's merely the end product of them feeling so confident at what they managed to pull of with that masquerade, they flew too close to the Sun, and forgot that while Wikipedia doesn't have many actual ethics driving its mission, it does typically draw the line somewhere. Somewhere just before pedophilia advocacy, to give you an idea of the sort of person the appropriately named Micheal Cockram was. Gerard was using Wikipedia to call an extrrnal enemy of his a white supremacist, and all he got was a slap on the wrist, and got to keep his Admin role.