Advanced search

the Wikipediophiles are desperately trying to erase the Yaniv story

(15 Posts)
ShootsFruitAndLeaves Fri 09-Aug-19 11:40:04

Wikipedia has a lot of socially disfunctional editors (nearly all male) who protect their hobby horses.

Here there is a tendentious chap trying to bury the Yaniv story. Reasons? No sources. Why no sources? Because he has already decreed that various articles in mainstream newspapers use 'transphobic language', lack a byline or whatever else, so can't be used.

Wikipedia is fundamentally broken due to the presence of these weirdos.

zebrasdontwearbras Fri 09-Aug-19 11:57:47

The TRA is strong on Wikipedia. They've done all sorts to the "woman" page - with all this "identifies as a woman" shite.

Can't believe Yaniv has supporters there, and on twitter though. They have all assisted Yaniv in keeping this hushed up.

I suspect they won't succeed in the long run - but I keep thinking "what if Yaniv wins the case?"

FermatsTheorem Fri 09-Aug-19 12:17:48

Dickipedia is a mess.

zebrasdontwearbras Fri 09-Aug-19 12:21:11

Dickipedia grin

BoreOfWhabylon Fri 09-Aug-19 12:54:36

Somone called "Fæ" seems to be doing a lot of the editing, according to the Talk page.

GrumpyGran8 Fri 09-Aug-19 16:44:18

Somone called "Fæ" seems to be doing a lot of the editing, according to the Talk page.
They seem to be the only TRA on there. I'm an occasional WP editor and most of the people on that talk page are doing what Wikipedia editors do constantly - debate the merits of an article.
Here, most of them are arguing about the verifiability of the reference sources and whether JY and/or the waxing case is important enough to merit their own article. Several editors also argue that the court judgement won't be handed down for weeks and so they shoud hold it until then.
Only Fae and a couple of others are going on about transphobia and they're outnumbered. Yes, the majority of WP editors are male, but don't accuse them all of misogyny.

ShootsFruitAndLeaves Mon 12-Aug-19 08:29:41

hahahaha. so sweet that you believe that.

of course they deleted it despite most people opposing deletion.

of course they banned further discussion

protecting the fetishists is 1000% guaranteed on Wikipedo

Ereshkigal Mon 12-Aug-19 08:41:29

Wow, could never see that coming. Well if these arrogant men want to make Wikipedia an irrelevant and ignored source when it comes to certain topical issues, knock yourselves out.

Dickipedia is right, whoever coined that grin

KatvonHostileExtremist Mon 12-Aug-19 08:48:22

I agree, I think they'll wait for the case outcomes, and I think that's sensible.

SpannerInTheWorks Mon 12-Aug-19 13:36:56

This is an interesting (but old) article about how Wikipedia is hostile to women

Interesting to know whether they have made any progress - from the sounds of things, they haven't.

Fraggling Mon 12-Aug-19 13:52:29

It's well known that wiki is Male dominated.

As with everything this has consequences.

There have been various drives to get pages in for women of note, and more female editors.

We don't seem to do it though. Lack of time +disinterest in getting in online argy bargy with angry men would seem to be drivers.

It's a real shame.

My belief is so called neutral ai will suffer the same. They only learn what they ate told. Wo is doing the telling. What conscious or unconscious biases do they have?

And the revision of feminist accounts womens history perspectives are shocking.

Bored angry men with time on their hands.

I read about dna structure diacovery again recently on wiki recently and fairly sure it was less damning of the men involved and what they did.

ShootsFruitAndLeaves Tue 13-Aug-19 17:22:07

the Fae chap turns out to be a really nasty piece of work who harassed people who didn't like him uploading bondage porn to Wikipedia yet still remained as chair of Wikipedia UK, despite, er being banned from Wikipedia (not for the degenerate porn, understand, but for breaking lots of rules)

Inevitably, he is an IT project manager,.and has given evidence before Parliament, on internet freedom.

ShootsFruitAndLeaves Tue 13-Aug-19 17:27:39

apparently it was some of the porn of himself, he had more than 200 fake Wikipedia accounts , he violated the privacy of prostitutes, when he uploaded their images to Wikipedia without consent. he was prone to legal threats, and was such an arsehole the founder of Wikipedia (himself famously a pornographer) had to ban him from his page

Ereshkigal Tue 13-Aug-19 17:37:23

Behold my shocked face.

Doobigetta Tue 13-Aug-19 17:46:37

Oh well, I feel much better about ignoring all their begging for money now.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »