5 ms·

[citation needed] 1. This is an issue the Wikimedia foundation has been dealing with and working to solve: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment

[citation needed] 1. This is an issue the Wikimedia foundation has been dealing with and working to solve: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Large_scale_language_inaccuracies_on_the_Scots_Wikipedia https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Large_s... 2A. The general rule with the Wikipedia is that, if you can make a redirect to something, it’s usually good to do so, even if the redirect uses a term which is not politically correct. Considering the source of the complaint comes from Reddit, Reddit is not a particularly reliable source about matters like this. 2B. As a strict inclusionist sometimes Wikipedia editor, I agree 100% with the general gist that the Wikipedia makes adding new articles too hard. That said, I have with some effort been able to make a new article stay in the Wikipedia fairly recently (late 2019): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValhallaDSP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValhallaDSP It did get tagged for deletion — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ValhallaDSP&type=revision&diff=928657050&oldid=928656761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ValhallaDSP&type=... — but the editor who put the tag removed it when I pointed out the subject has been extensively referenced by the music press — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ValhallaDSP&type=revision&diff=928659123&oldid=928658974 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ValhallaDSP&type=... 2C. Please provide evidence; e.g. diffs where you tried to edit something and all of your edits were reverted. [Citation needed] and all that. 3. The current version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor — this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aimee_Challenor&oldid=1021429509 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aimee_Challenor&o... — has the Reddit scandal and other scandals prominently described in the lead section. Please let us know how the article is not neutral.

rvba 5y ago
1. Wikimedia foundation is doing literally nothing. It is painfully obvious that they should hire people who would sit all day and review actions of admins (their bans, reverts, edit wars.. yes admins participate in them too, but nobody does anything about it). Obviously we end up with a question "who watches the watchmen", but this could be made all public too. For example Wikipedia has a role called CheckUser - what is a person that has special access rights to check IP addresses of all other users. This is mainly used to see if a person doesn't use multiple sock puppet accounts to make various types of abuse (e.g. vote manipulation). I know a local Wikipedia, where the CheckUser literally refuses to check if admins don't have sock puppet accounts. This means that the admins can literally make any sock puppet they want and always win any vote, including future votes for a new CheckUser. What can you do about it? Nothing. Can you write about this to Wikimedia Foundation? Nope. There even isnt any official way to contact them. They basically let local Wikipedia branches run themselves. 2A. You write a lot of text to defend literal garbage. That admin added 80 THOUSAND incredibly low effort redirects related to woman breasts. "Titty tumors", "Segmental removal of the titties", "Constructions of the booby", "Hypoplastic tits", "Atrophy of the titties"... Please explain to me how this is any good? If a new user made such garbage, it would be speed deleted and the user IP banned immediately. 2B. So basically an experienced Wikipedia user still got their article speed deleted, had to fight to get it back.. and then somehow what I wrote is wrong. So to sum up, if you dont like the facts, you ignore the facts? I realy dont understand what is your point here. 3. Again, you seem to miss the point. Someone asked for an example of a political article that was problematic. So I provided an article. You can look at the edit history to see that there were literal wars about everything there. Also in case of articles about living people, politicians etc. it is often quite clear that said politicians or their aides are the ones who are tasked with guarding the article, editing it. > Please let us know how the article is not neutral. Do you represent Wikipedia or Wikipedia foundation in any way?
- strenholme 5y ago
  You did not provide one link nor citation in your entire 400-word rant.
  - rvba 5y ago
    Hey, please explain to me why "Constructions of the booby", or "Atrophy of the titties" are things that should be on Wikipedia? I guess you cannot defend this, so you just change the subject. Or maybe you are a sexist, who thinks that this is ok. Why do you demand citations when Wikipedia is discussed? For any other topic, you dont demand them, or dont use them. I guess you are just some common troll, probably a Wikipedia admin. Joke's on me, since I even bothered to reply.
    - strenholme 5y ago
      Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Constructions_of_the_booby https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet... — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Atrophy_of_the_titties https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet... (Edit: The references show that they were on the Wikipedia, but were deleted in 2015, i.e. before #MeToo. Also, the offending admin was topic banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ) I am demanding citations because you’re making contentious accusations based on half-truths. This will be my last reply to you; I do not think a productive conversation is possible at this point.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        It is clear from when he originally brought it up that those articles had been, eventually, removed. Indeed, part of his point (and a relevant issue, I believe) was to ask why this took so long. Since this must be clear to you, it seems that your comment is disingenuous.

rvba 5y ago

1. Wikimedia foundation is doing literally nothing. It is painfully obvious that they should hire people who would sit all day and review actions of admins (their bans, reverts, edit wars.. yes admins participate in them too, but nobody does anything about it). Obviously we end up with a question "who watches the watchmen", but this could be made all public too. For example Wikipedia has a role called CheckUser - what is a person that has special access rights to check IP addresses of all other users. This is mainly used to see if a person doesn't use multiple sock puppet accounts to make various types of abuse (e.g. vote manipulation). I know a local Wikipedia, where the CheckUser literally refuses to check if admins don't have sock puppet accounts. This means that the admins can literally make any sock puppet they want and always win any vote, including future votes for a new CheckUser. What can you do about it? Nothing. Can you write about this to Wikimedia Foundation? Nope. There even isnt any official way to contact them. They basically let local Wikipedia branches run themselves. 2A. You write a lot of text to defend literal garbage. That admin added 80 THOUSAND incredibly low effort redirects related to woman breasts. "Titty tumors", "Segmental removal of the titties", "Constructions of the booby", "Hypoplastic tits", "Atrophy of the titties"... Please explain to me how this is any good? If a new user made such garbage, it would be speed deleted and the user IP banned immediately. 2B. So basically an experienced Wikipedia user still got their article speed deleted, had to fight to get it back.. and then somehow what I wrote is wrong. So to sum up, if you dont like the facts, you ignore the facts? I realy dont understand what is your point here. 3. Again, you seem to miss the point. Someone asked for an example of a political article that was problematic. So I provided an article. You can look at the edit history to see that there were literal wars about everything there. Also in case of articles about living people, politicians etc. it is often quite clear that said politicians or their aides are the ones who are tasked with guarding the article, editing it. > Please let us know how the article is not neutral. Do you represent Wikipedia or Wikipedia foundation in any way?

strenholme 5y ago
You did not provide one link nor citation in your entire 400-word rant.
- rvba 5y ago
  Hey, please explain to me why "Constructions of the booby", or "Atrophy of the titties" are things that should be on Wikipedia? I guess you cannot defend this, so you just change the subject. Or maybe you are a sexist, who thinks that this is ok. Why do you demand citations when Wikipedia is discussed? For any other topic, you dont demand them, or dont use them. I guess you are just some common troll, probably a Wikipedia admin. Joke's on me, since I even bothered to reply.
  - strenholme 5y ago
    Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Constructions_of_the_booby https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet... — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Atrophy_of_the_titties https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet... (Edit: The references show that they were on the Wikipedia, but were deleted in 2015, i.e. before #MeToo. Also, the offending admin was topic banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ) I am demanding citations because you’re making contentious accusations based on half-truths. This will be my last reply to you; I do not think a productive conversation is possible at this point.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      It is clear from when he originally brought it up that those articles had been, eventually, removed. Indeed, part of his point (and a relevant issue, I believe) was to ask why this took so long. Since this must be clear to you, it seems that your comment is disingenuous.