4 ms·

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.
    - strenholme 5y ago
      I agree, the Wikipedia process is very slow, and often times a lot of discussion happens before something is finally done. That’s a natural consequence of a process where consensus, reliable sourcing, and a desire to be neutral and accurate determines what is acceptable and not acceptable. I much prefer the process to what Reddit does, which is, in many subreddits, to quickly ban anyone who goes against the group think of a given subreddit, even if the subreddit is wrong. In Wikipedia, as a rule of thumb, is that the truth does win out, even if it takes a while to get there. As one example, while Tara Reade’s now-discredited accusation [1] against Joe Biden was all over numerous subreddits and presented as objective fact, [2] the Wikipedia was taking a slower, more measured approach to reporting the accusations which ultimately ended up being far more accurate than what Reddit was doing at the time. [3] As another case, a lot of noise was made over how horrible the Wikipedia was because Clarice Phelps didn’t have a Wikipedia article. She has one today. [4] [1] This probably needs a citation. How about https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-s... or, yeah, since it’s so heavily sourced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_alleg... [2] For example, https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multiple_witnesses_have_come_forward_and_verified/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multip... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara_Reade_alleged_Biden_%22penetrated_%5Bher%5D_with_his_fingers%22_without_her_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps [5] Wikipedia has a hard time with allowing articles about cool open source projects and languages. I agree this is really annoying, since it means I have to dig through GitHub, forums like this one, or (for fonts) Google Fonts to find high quality open source programs or content. [6] Adding footnotes without a reference to the footnote is an old alt.sysadmin.recovery tradition
      - leephillips 5y ago
        You sidestepped the point about disingenuously pointing out that the articles that the original commenter was very clear had been already taken down, were not there. Do you think that being better than Reddit is a high bar?
- dang 5y ago
  You crossed badly into flamewar and personal attack in this thread. We've had to warn you about this kind of thing before. We ban accounts that do it repeatedly, so please stop and don't do it again. You can make your substantive points without any of that, and it's also in your interests to do so! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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.
  - strenholme 5y ago
    I agree, the Wikipedia process is very slow, and often times a lot of discussion happens before something is finally done. That’s a natural consequence of a process where consensus, reliable sourcing, and a desire to be neutral and accurate determines what is acceptable and not acceptable. I much prefer the process to what Reddit does, which is, in many subreddits, to quickly ban anyone who goes against the group think of a given subreddit, even if the subreddit is wrong. In Wikipedia, as a rule of thumb, is that the truth does win out, even if it takes a while to get there. As one example, while Tara Reade’s now-discredited accusation [1] against Joe Biden was all over numerous subreddits and presented as objective fact, [2] the Wikipedia was taking a slower, more measured approach to reporting the accusations which ultimately ended up being far more accurate than what Reddit was doing at the time. [3] As another case, a lot of noise was made over how horrible the Wikipedia was because Clarice Phelps didn’t have a Wikipedia article. She has one today. [4] [1] This probably needs a citation. How about https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-s... or, yeah, since it’s so heavily sourced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_alleg... [2] For example, https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multiple_witnesses_have_come_forward_and_verified/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multip... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara_Reade_alleged_Biden_%22penetrated_%5Bher%5D_with_his_fingers%22_without_her_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps [5] Wikipedia has a hard time with allowing articles about cool open source projects and languages. I agree this is really annoying, since it means I have to dig through GitHub, forums like this one, or (for fonts) Google Fonts to find high quality open source programs or content. [6] Adding footnotes without a reference to the footnote is an old alt.sysadmin.recovery tradition
    - leephillips 5y ago
      You sidestepped the point about disingenuously pointing out that the articles that the original commenter was very clear had been already taken down, were not there. Do you think that being better than Reddit is a high bar?
dang 5y ago
You crossed badly into flamewar and personal attack in this thread. We've had to warn you about this kind of thing before. We ban accounts that do it repeatedly, so please stop and don't do it again. You can make your substantive points without any of that, and it's also in your interests to do so! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html