4 ms·

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

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?
    - strenholme 5y ago
      I do not think I side steped the issue. Of the three issues the OP originally brought up, he only stated that one of those issues were resolved by the Wikipedia (and he quoted Reddit instead of a more direct source, e.g. 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... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Neelix_active_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Neelix-created_redirects,_yet_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ). While the post was quite heated and it’s hard to separate facts from expressions of anger, to me he strongly implied the other two haven’t been dealt with or resolved, while, in fact, all the issues are resolved or are being discussed, in Wikipedia’s typical style of discussing things to death (I remember when discussing whether to host pro-pedophile advocacy was a thing on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archiv... ) I brought up Reddit because the OP brought up Reddit; I agree they are horribly inaccurate, and if something I read on Reddit makes me angry, I check other sources to make sure I’m not getting worked up over a lie.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        I believe you did. In rvba’s item 2A, he is clear that the issue was addressed, after “an incredible amount of time”. Your reply provides the information that the articles no longer exist on the platform, as if it were a refutation of rvba’s point. This is what I am calling disingenuous, and I think my characterization is warranted. EDIT: But perhaps I am wrong or confused. Wouldn’t be the first time. In that case, please clarify what, exactly, was the purpose of your citations that began “Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia:”.

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?
  - strenholme 5y ago
    I do not think I side steped the issue. Of the three issues the OP originally brought up, he only stated that one of those issues were resolved by the Wikipedia (and he quoted Reddit instead of a more direct source, e.g. 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... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Neelix_active_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Neelix-created_redirects,_yet_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ). While the post was quite heated and it’s hard to separate facts from expressions of anger, to me he strongly implied the other two haven’t been dealt with or resolved, while, in fact, all the issues are resolved or are being discussed, in Wikipedia’s typical style of discussing things to death (I remember when discussing whether to host pro-pedophile advocacy was a thing on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archiv... ) I brought up Reddit because the OP brought up Reddit; I agree they are horribly inaccurate, and if something I read on Reddit makes me angry, I check other sources to make sure I’m not getting worked up over a lie.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      I believe you did. In rvba’s item 2A, he is clear that the issue was addressed, after “an incredible amount of time”. Your reply provides the information that the articles no longer exist on the platform, as if it were a refutation of rvba’s point. This is what I am calling disingenuous, and I think my characterization is warranted. EDIT: But perhaps I am wrong or confused. Wouldn’t be the first time. In that case, please clarify what, exactly, was the purpose of your citations that began “Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia:”.