1250:
not alone). My own personal targets are small though: figuring out ways to get stuff on
Knowledge that others claim is non-encyclopedic, or getting museums to get something out of storage and put it on show, or even get someone to restore a building. I am not paid for anything I do onwiki, so I am willing to take my time, sometimes years, while constructing elaborate arguments before making my move. I always have my ducks in a row before I attempt something and I certainly would never, ever, attempt to do something on the scale that you attempted. Know your enemy! Universities are among some of the biggest PR watchdogs we have, and like I said, they are supported by our highly productive editor base of mostly male undergraduates and recent graduates. If you had restricted yourself to fatalities (Wikipedians LOVE fatalities - not sure why) you would probably have had a lot more support, but as it was, you had no support except for the usual goodwill, which in your case wasn't enough. Don't forget the greeks are pretty horrible institutions by nature and those in them find it amusing to attack anyone who attacks them. Even though many Wikipedians may not have been members of greeks, if they went to those schools they will still vote to keep their school's name cleared of anything they perceive to be slander. If you could change your list to be a list of greeks with the various campus locations where these problems came up, then again you would increase chances of support. In the north I think the greeks have slowly been losing their following. I believe your work is valuable and should be on Wikidata. Your main problem is the aggressive nature of the process you followed, not the Wiki way itself, which works pretty well once you get used to it.
691:
motives as an "agenda" and "POV-pushing" - like coming to
Knowledge to include information about campus sexual violence - but we label other motives - like adding articles about every military cargo ship and video game ever created - as value-neutral or positive. Does misogyny or systemic bias play a role how we view those motives? Why are those feminist interests labeled "POV-pushing" and not those traditionally masculine ones? For some of our decisions we can point to external benchmarks, e.g. we don't include or give weight to certain information or viewpoints about alternative medicine or the JFK assassination because scientists and historians have not supported them. But one of the points this article makes is that we make the mistake of thinking all of our decisions are similarly based on an external objectivity. What scientific or historical consensus says that campus sexual violence is unimportant in the history of universities? There are plenty of external reliable sources which say it is important, and we can't point to other encyclopedias as our external benchmark to justify excluding it, because it's not like they include every military cargo ship and video game ever created like we do.
517:". On a predominantly male site that is run by consensus, you can't wikilawyer successfully to improve the treatment of women, because asking people to be more considerate regarding women is considered "WP:THREATENING2MEN". There is lots of elegant academic explanation of the mechanisms of why attempts to wikilawyer for improved treatment of women fail, but the philosophical underpinnings lead back to the obvious: When you run an 80% male website by consensus, with no restrictions whatsoever on sexual, violent, or profane speech in interactions between editors beyond the criterion, "Was that a direct personal attack on a specific individual?", this is unlikely to result in extensive participation by women, and will also deter many men. The author thinks you won't get a "climate of respect" unless WMF becomes involved: "In order to establish healthier habits and traditions, the Wikimedia Foundation would have to actively cultivate a climate of respect. Culture ... is derived from cultivation." In other words, WMF is setting the ground rules here as to whether respect is a requirement for participation or not, and maintaining a climate of respect takes effort that hasn't been forthcoming. --
1616:
AfD on every page possible, while it remains the same group of individuals (and potential sockpuppets) voicing the delete. The outcome: as long as the information is silo-ed away from actual higher education pages -- which is pretty much wiped off of EVERY college and university page -- it seemed acceptable to the majority (not consensus). So, the argument that this is cherrypicking doesn't actually hold any water in the face of my argument: rather than discussing the long histories of sexual violence documented in primary and secondary sources, rather than providing evidence that the announcement of the list of schools under investigation (for a civil violation and not a criminal violation, which are not similar in anyway) was not a historic or landmark event, Wikipedians chose to debate their own policies and how campus sexual violence is anathema to the definition of information outlined therein for all the reasons I've listed. Also, I think I may have had to submit the article for peer review before that AfD began or resolved... so that plays into this as well.
1231:, I think you make some incredibly important points. My response to your argument about the structural conditions beyond Wiki (i.e. art awards) is that you are absolutely correct. But I think Knowledge has the capacity to buck those structural conditions in the same way it transformed the norm for encyclopedic composition. I think I state above that Knowledge is currently a microcosm, if not an amplification, of the ways campus sexual violence is handled. As for your argument re: college students, alma maters, and greeks, I think this is an empirical question that requires observation and testing. I could see it going two ways: 1) that it would not have as much of a reaction, because it seems like the Knowledge demographic does not typically overly with the Greek demographic, except in those instances (many) where PR teams watch Knowledge like hawks. I know that these PR teams exist for universities, having lived in them for much of my professional life. Or, the second possibility, is that these would go incredibly contested as edits, given that the hi
1848:
hearing), or any conviction or settlement in an adversarial hearing whatsoever, is just too early in the game not to be unfair. Yes, it's news, yes, you can ask that the student union representatives get involved in the investigations (to throw their asses out of office, and ruin their fledgling political careers, when it's discovered they didn't do anything). But to put forward *an investigation* as a significant part of the school's character needs something more. It needs, well, as is stated, to overcome WP:RELIABLE and WP:RECENTISM. There's obviously a reason the United States federal government is looking into their schools. I think it's likely, if you could go through the court filings of those states and localities, find some juicy court cases where the school looks like it's run by a bunch of bafoons and jackasses, but you nor the national news conglomerates can afford to get them all (the 1 TB harddrive with the court filings would likely cost in the millions of dollars, if
1195:
about women. In fact
Knowledge is twice as good. That said, 24% seems lagging, but this has to do with a gendergap in the arts world. Knowledge cannot fix any existing gendergap, but it can help to stop them being amplified. A gendergap is amplified for example when a museum opts to spend all of its purchasing power on modern artworks by men. This may not even be a decision made by the museum directly, but indirectly, by stipulating that only prize-winning works should be purchased, and no prizes are awarded to women that year, etc. Looking at the history of this particular case, namely the history of sexual violence in US universities, I can imagine the amount of pushback this got at each turn. Most Wikipedian editors are students or just-graduated and looking for a job. In both cases they are highly motivated to keep their alma mater pages in order. If you had selected the topic of deaths relating to alcohol abuse at universities or just fatal accidents due to stupidity during "
2371:
blind to the various forms of injustice and discrimination that are created in the wake of objectification and neutralization. While the above text makes those things sound as if the devil himself had devised them for this site, it should be clear that in most of the cases, these things are absolutely normal and essential for
Knowledge. Even Thebrycepeake, if he is serious about his work here, will have to engage regularly in these kinds of activities: We cite a physicist's textbook to silence those who claims that jet fuel can't melt steel beams; we counter claims that there is no racism in western societies with statistics of the job market; and we make a clear distinction between points of view that deserve to be presented in a well-balanced fashion and those who don't deserve that kind of privilege. And if we follow our conscious, we are doing this by being faithful to our sources, the issues we write about, and what we hold to be true and just.
1984:, thanks for your comments. I'm not trying to make a case, but rather to evaluate the case which was made. I'm still finding it difficult to get past all the buzzterms thrown out by this op-ed: misogynist infopolitics, asshole consensus, THREATENING2MEN, male privilege, "ontologizing" gender, the positivistic "how many women equals equality" question, "gender gap" civilizing mission, WikiLawyering, rhetorical "power plays", ethnographic approach, scientism, "ruling with reason", metapragmatic dimensions of inclusion, cis-gendered... sorry, my head is spinning. I know that there's likely some real issues behind the buzzterm wall, but the only thing concrete I picked up from it was the categorization argument, which I think is weak. In contrast, you two, with your short replies, have given me more rationales worth looking in to than the entire lengthy op-ed.
1853:(and therefore your articles you want to create) or just bitch bitch bitch (sorry, my patriarchy showing) and get nothing done, your choice. (I know what you've chosen, let's keep it real.) Matriarchy and misandry are real, to be sure, but the real issue here IMO is that you want to fix a problem without working whatsoever on an underlying contributing factor, which is ultimately costing you the reference citations you so desparately need. (Note your would-be work would probably help men more in the beginning stages, which I don't think is going to encourage you any, but there it is.) There are so few of us working on this problem, we won't make any significant progress for a few more generations, so I think you're pretty much screwed on this, but have faith, future generations of women will not be nearly as poorly prepared as you.
1912:. That consensus reflected (some) editors' belief that the alleged victim was lying or to blame, notice comments like "mattress-girl's propaganda show".. "Sulkowicz's report, seven months after the alleged incident, may have been less than truthful"... "just leave the guy alone." By contrast, the faces of the women who helped the alleged victim carry the mattress are shown. Knowledge covers topics like campus rape but the way Knowledge covers these topics is usually biased in favor of the majority POV (male, Western, white..). I'm saying nothing new here, it's been shown in several studies that our content isn't as neutral (in the sense of a pure reflection of RS) as we like to think. And in my experience we are much more open toward people and views from the manosphere than voices from the other end of the spectrum. --
2678:(i.e. PR) piece; like Peake, I coincidentally have a degree in that, too, so I recognize it when I see it (especially having been a professional activist for about a decade). An ethnographic approach is certainly not evidenced by a claim of "scientism" on the part Peak's "asshole" opponents. Last I looked, anthropology is a science. And it doesn't require a focus on science to decide whether something is a defining quality of a university, for either lead or a category, anyway. No untoward veneration of science is required to assess whether some vague "investigation" is encyclopedic material or of indeterminate importance. It's absolutely the wrong approach to ethnographic methods to generalize from observations of outlying members of a group to assumptions about every member of a population.
2627:
schools under investigation for Title IX violations as a historical precedent, but a deeper feminist conspiracy against some undefined neutrality on
Knowledge and against universities more generally." Are we to believe Peake can peer into the minds of Wikipedians, assess their motives, and identify a common nefarious one, focused on hating feminists? (Never mind the fact that none of this has anything to do with the actual objections raised about the category, remember.) This whole line of thinking raises obvious questions: Why does Knowledge have so many well-developed articles on feminism if it's puppeteered by a masculist dirtbag conspiracy that recursively consists of anti-woman conspiracy theorists? Why don't our articles on feminism and women look like those of
2392:
approach to unquestioned truths, I think it could do a better job at exposing itself to the shortcomings, risks and blind spots of its own approach. Others ā Wikipedians, Men, hegemonists, ignorants, formalists, etc. ā cannot cease to fail in their quest for truth and neutrality, because they are mistaken from the very start. The author, on the other hand, or who ever it is who speaks through this lines to the readers, does not seem to live the dangerous life of being prone to error or having to learn about his or her own mistakes. I think this way of telling a story is bit too lazy, at least for our times who seem to have their difficulties with perspectives who claim access to an infallible truth.
1753:. For starters, the majority of information contained on the OCR page that was transferred from the list was my work, copied and pasted by the editor who did the merge. Second, you are correct in the fact that I did not add to the conversation on whether to add 2 sentences ā near verbatim from the ones I included in other pages ā to Title IX after Grove City. I would point out that while the reference is made in the article to the schools named in the historic event, reference to being named during the height of campus sexual violence investigations does not appear on the vast majority of those colleges' and universities' Knowledge articles for reasons that this essay describes.
1235:. In other words, men controlled access to booze, while sororities were dependent upon frats for house parties (not always the case, of course). The factual confrontation, then, is that Greek drinking incidents and sexual violence are not as totally separate as they may appear - but I will be the first to admit that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING IN TOTAL. Again, these two guesses, they are really assumptions without any real empirical grounding from experience or testing. It would be important to see how it pans out, and to take a long critical look at the divergence and confluence with the ways content debates over campus sexual violence go.
2618:... they don't add the so-called missing men to these articles. Nor do they ... demonstrate... all of this is just 'feminist bluster'." Show us "Wikipedians" in the aggregate doing this. Generalizing from what some particular individual posted, into an all-encompassing "Wikipedians" is exactly the same logic error as assuming that all dogs are vicious because one bit you when you were a kid after you kicked it. The entire piece is laced with this diffuse and unaccountable blaming. Take this, for example: "Within two weeks, a group of Wikipedians nominated the category for deletion." It's not possible for a
1274:. Thank goodness the history is preserved in redirects, for anyone willing to take the time! As I was digging in (no particular reason to look at Dartmouth btw - all college campuses with greeks have the same problems) I remembered that there is another factor involved in Knowledge editor page watch protection: not just current students and graduates are eager to keep these pages inviting and clean - also town residents and college employees! Most of the more powerful greeks are property owners in small towns and the local council is not unwilling to help them out from time to time.
2082:. In my experience, it has been a difficult article to work on. Every minor detail seems to be a battle. The fact that the article is remotely neutral, I suspect is primarily due to the fact that the article has gotten some attn from the gender gap task force, but honestly I'm not sure how much longer I personally can deal with editing that article. For context, here is what the article looked like before gender gap task force was alerted to inaccuracy and neutrality issues there. Notice it used to open with factual errors such as Sulkowicz never filing a police report:
2100:
public about it. However, my reading of the BLP debate suggests it started with an effort to keep
Reliable Source commentary and publication of Sulkowicz facebook postings out of the article because she seemed friendly and expressed affection for him well after the alleged assault. So there seemed to be a big blow up about that which ended up with neither the accused's name, nor any mention of those Facebook postings left out of the article, perhaps because they went hand in glove in that particular discussion. So it was not a one-sided, protect the man only, outcome.
2250:. When editors disagree with an initiative by Thebrycepeake, it is because the information threatens male domination. When they cite policy, they are using "scientism" to mask their ignorance of fact. Deletion debates become opportunities for the majority to impose their will on a minority. And by extension, Knowledge as a whole is subject to a "hegemony of the asshole consensus." There is no real evidence for these claims; they are constructed out of a mixture of mind-reading, rhetoric and guilt by association. It positively invites an uncivil response.
2742:
around women. And you can't treat me different because I am a woman. She stirred the pot by getting all the women in uproar to help her promote her view. She surely lurks here to this day as another editor (Areola Dark) as no one can really ban anyone. Of course I could be wrong, she might be in Ranger training right now to come back and kick this sausage fest out of the closet. But I really do miss her, she made wiki lawyers come out like roaches when you turn the lights out. You could of sold ring side seats when she got a bee in her bonnet.
2375:
hegemonic, or what ever you would like to call the forces that make them act in the ways which are criticized in this opinion piece. They are borrowing from science an authority they don't deserve, making them the actual opposite of what they claim to be ā neutral, objective, fair, pragmatic, and so on. But here we might hesitate for a second: Isn't this article doing the same thing by citing renowned scholars who allegedly support the author's point of view? Isn't erecting the ideal of a fair and balanced account that manages to include
2272:, where another gang of oppressors questions its inclusion in the college/uni infobox template. Yet, on reflection, these people don't sound very frightening. They don't challenge the accuracy or value of the information; they simply question the way that Thebrycepeake wishes to present it. And they frequently propose alternatives such as creating a separate article on the investigations and linking university articles to it, or incorporating the material into the history section for each article. Indeed, that has been done in
399:, and comment on the essence? This is the point of numerous complaints about wikipedia discussions: ignoring the essence and cherry-pick on the talker's slip of tongue. Now, jokes aside, what do you say in answer on what I really posted: In my reading, the author claimed that we spend more time on wikilawyering and discussing policies than on content. If I read it correctly, do you agree or not that broad statements of this kind must be supported by broad data analysis rather than links to random talk pages?
1199:", a yearly phenomenon which happens alas to ALL genders, I don't think the outcome would have been different. Knowledge is not good political arena, though I would agree that it is one. It is just very tricky to maneuver within the confines of the Knowledge policy system. I am ashamed to say that I agree with some of the quotes that you repeat here by Wikipedians. Sorry about that, but I think ALL of your work would be welcome on Wikidata, and we should probably make a Wikidata project to do just that.
2617:
follow the rules, and now I'm going to get even because others noticed and didn't let me have my way." The closest thing to evidence is just unsupported, overgeneralizing mass accusations, like "Wikipedians argued that research on
Knowledge's gender bias ... are themselves 'biased' and 'invalid' because they don't include information about men", and "To demonstrate this bias, Wikipedians either engage in shallow methodological critiques or cite a litany of WP:<POLICY: -->
2319:, Thebrycepeake says, "The fact that the President's own taskforce NAMED (for the first time EVER) these institutions, and that the news has widely broadcast this naming, further makes it a defining feature for a lot of current and future occupants." Unfortunately, the other editors are not able to articulate the crucial flaw in this reasoning, falling back on statements like "it doesn't have the long-term and wide-ranging significance to be defining." But the real point of
2674:. A sentence later Peake turns this "ethnographic" criticism on it its ear, and says of his own counter-argument "Through an ethnographic approach, however, I am able to go one step further than these quantitative studies to demonstrate ..." . So, what is this? An ethnographers against ethnographers war? While Peake has some educational background in anthropology, I do, too. I'm not detecting anthropological thinking at work in this editorial; it's a socio-political
2380:
from the countless wikilegal, wikipolitical, and wikitechnical arguments brought forth by countless
Wikipedians who hardly qualify as "Menā¢" (at least not any more than Thebrycepeake himself) towards the issues and arguments the author deems the most important commit the very same crime of ignoring problems that actually matter in the here and now in favor of dogmatized slogans, phrases, and claims which only bear the cloak of feminism?
715:+1. Thank you for mentioning the bias towards inclusion of military / engine-powered ships rather than merchant / sailing vessels, as this is truly distressing. And there are no doubt many other communities whose interests are not being served by the current focus of our article writers. With the ability to make multiple articles on the same topic, you'd think it would be possible to find workarounds that serve different communities. --
29:
2569:
approach isn't appropriate on WP, rather than listen to the reasons and reapproach the issue by writing an article about the investigation(s), their scope, and the targeted institutions (i.e., salvage the work), the writer instead declared WP full of hegemonic assholes, abandoned the work, and parlayed the "experience" into a one-sided journal paper instead. I kind of feel WP was used, and the entire situation is a
2114:
directly (or pick another quote that's less searingly critical), or they want to include a qualifier that she's a "dissident feminist". What I've seen is an effort to minimize criticism of the work, no matter if (or perhaps because) it comes from a notable social critic. Is that debate an example gender bias in
Knowledge? Well, maybe. Or it could be a content dispute, with both perspectives having merit.
587:: I can write 10 more articles during this wasted time instead. Only an "advocate" is stubborn enough to keep on punching through. That said, "just because you are paranoid this doesn't mean that they aren't after you". Wikipedians, and especially admins do have to do a better job at judging and counting actual arguments in discussions. And unfortunately
1557:
893:
which content, and editors, are worthy of inclusion (should content and editors have to be proven "worthy?"). I do think that
Category: Schools under investigation for Title IX violations" should have been deleted though, as I don't think subjects should be identified with violating laws or policies unless they actually have done so.--
2703:. There is, surely, a Knowledge douchebag factor at work (closely related to that found in the gaming community, the free software movement, academia , and business, but it's just Y-chromo jackassery, not a vindictive political movement. It's a thick wall to knock down, but hammering on the wrong one doesn't help. I'll close with
1908:
cleared him of responsibility in all three cases" but according to RS he was found "responsible" for another sexual assault, but won on appeal after the woman graduated and withdrew her complaint. The alleged rapist's name, which was mentioned in all reliable sources, is suppressed and was redacted even on the article talk page per
1888:, and successfully defended it from a deletion attempt. Note, however, that it has less than a dozen members. I don't do Facebook, but my understanding is that it has thousands, if not millions, of "groups". However, only a handful of notable organizations are WP:defined by this characteristic. For example: "
2406:
work erased without sufficient explanation and whose complaints have been overheard, ignored, ridiculed and in any case misunderstood. The only reasonable way of resolving ignorance and misunderstanding, however, is not by hailing some kind of world where the differences from which they stem are finally ā
1694:- so this policy can cut both ways). And something like three other editors have supported deletion of your edits, and they were investigated for sockpuppetry. These are the individuals that you generalize to "Wikipedians". After the AfD decision, the nominator added a section on sexual investigations to
2741:
banned her for being way to of a demanding woman. Seriously, she was demanding, a woman and was banned. I did love how she attacked the meatheads and even agreed with her when it came to the porn loving adolescent meatheads assessment. She played both sides of the fence, I am woman you cannot do that
2736:
I have not visited Knowledge for several months as my studies are more important but hey Spring Break is next week so here I am. I thought I would check up on my "All Time Favorite" Wikipedian. I say that seriously and humorously. She was here to push her POV that guns and men are evil. Lightbreather
2517:
I am female, I was assigned male at birth and have stereotypical male body parts. I shy away from the label "transgender" because I find the trans community too exclusive. I don't get into gender politics on Knowledge or edit gender-related articles often because I'm afraid. The environment of gender
605:
Writings like this are also common because there are a surprisingly large number of people in the world who are used to politeness in their personal lives, and collegiality in their professional and intellectual interactions. These civilized individuals don't really have the option to avoid Knowledge
2684:
There is no "WP:THREATENING2MEN" factor at work here, except on the part of a few isolated individuals. Men are not generally threatened by women or feminism (even if some outlying weirdos with mental issues are). Rather, the gap and the bias come from "WP:NOTINTERESTING2MEN". Males in the aggregate
2568:
What's happened here is that someone tried to expand, categorize, and restructure a whole bunch of articles in a skewing way, that focused, laser-like, on something that's really a vague, open-ended "investigation" the basis and parameters of which are unclear. When reasons were given why this exact
2508:
Similarly, the history of the Elliot Rodger article (merged with the 2014 Isla Vista killings) reveals debates over whether he should be included in the category "violence against men" instead of "misogyny," whether the word "misogyny" should be used since he killed more men than women, and if there
2405:
I thought at leasts feminists were immune to falling into this kind of trap. But maybe that's also a bit too presumptuous from my side, as I have written pieces like this one myself, albeit I hope it's been some years by now. I can understand the rightful indignation of someone who's seen their hard
2370:
on Knowledge, definining it (I am paraphrasising here) somewhere along the lines of an unjustified use of scientific arguments and terms to silence critics and dissenters, strengthening one's own political views with scientific authority and thereby claiming objectivity, and, on top of it all, being
1770:
In closing, I want to say thank you for reading my article so thoroughly. The time you spent examining its falsifiability is very appreciated. However, my experience is that ad hominem attacks about who is doing āthe real workā ā itself a description with a long gendered legacy ā signal the end of a
1615:
articles, which made goodwill on his part imperative as admins watched his actions, 2) that all of the delete comments fall in line with the discussion and analysis above, and 3) that the votes for keep come MUCH later in the discussion -- as in after I went around drumming up support by posting the
1249:
Well I don't know about the costs for boozing by sororities - last I checked the cost of beer per keg was still pretty low. And some women can be extremely aggressive when they drink as well. I sympathize with your ultimate goal, and I am personally a big fan of the shame game on Knowledge (and I am
1136:
is a non-argument. Did you ever count hours of their free time spent by kooks? Shall we pay them respect for this? The exact same answer to your rhetorics you will get from a hardcore feminist: "sure they do, they spend countless resource to impose their male dominance onto the whole wikipedia under
661:
A decent read, but the author seems to 1. completely misunderstand the purpose of Knowledge and 2. have come here specifically to push a specific point of view. If you want to raise awareness about sexual assault on college campuses, great and more power to you, we have an article on that for you to
306:
Yes they are: "I spent some five hours creating the Knowledge category Schools under investigation for Title IX violations, which included a short introduction and links to all" + "information about campus sexual violence was removed from college and university pages because it was not "defining" of
2391:
for its agenda, two authors whose theories and political stances are so radically opposed to each other with regard to this op-ed's theses that I find it hard to believe its author has thoroughly engaged with their relevant writings. For an article so ostentatiously bearing the banner of a critical
2379:
views, claims, and needs and then pitting it against the messy reality of everyday Knowledge guilty of the same sleight of hand that accuses others of their bias and their obvious personal interests, while firmly situating oneself outside such political quarrels? Doesn't the op-ed, by shifting away
2374:
But of course this is not what Thebrycepeake protests against here. What delineates scientific from scientism, it appears, is that the latter is phony and hollow, and that its proponents either bluntly lie about their real motives or (even worse!) are oblivious to the inherently mysoginist, sexist,
1992:
story, which I found to be pretty thorough and fairly balanced. I'm resisting my desire to respond more directly to your comments here as I don't want to fork the discussion too far from the original op-ed's points. I'd be interested in an investigation into cases, not limited to this subject area,
1194:
database showing the women artists and accompanying it with the quote about 24% women on Knowledge. Since the graph shows clearly that the best matching percentage is only about half that, then it is clear that Knowledge does better than the RKD at including biographies (or at least Wikidata items)
1115:
wasn't a suitable category and that we should have disregarded policies and common sense for your ad hoc activist name-and-shame purposes. Checking the author's contributions, he seems to not have been very active ever anyway, perhaps for the best, as being here for the purpose of identity politics
1082:
although the left-libertarian aggregate still isn't perfectly globally representative. Still, there are POV pushers that get stopped by our conscientious editors. I'm dismayed that this so-called academic wrote a journal article about his stunt and now perhaps believes he did his part to "check his
974:
Your irony is misplaced. WP:RS criteria include objectivity. And if you look into the WP:RS noticeboard, you will notice that objectivity of some sources is routinely challenged, i.e., the issue is taken seriously. What is more, we even know that "reliable" may be in an honest error. Knowledge text
567:
This stuff is so common to the point it is boring and incredibly formulaic. 1. Person comes onto Knowledge to advocate a particular viewpoint. 2. Said person runs into the NPOV policy and has POV-pushing reverted or deleted. 3. Person writes long post decrying the "bias" of Knowledge. At this point
436:
of random pages. What I starting from is that anyone can easily cherry-pick 2-3 pages where wikipedians behave as assholes. Therefore I wrote that your request was pointless in terms of improving the scientific quality of the article. Just the same, anyone can cherry-pick a dozen or even a gross of
225:
It's a long slog getting through this, but it deserves careful reading. The author obviously knows something about how Wikipolitics work as well as infopolitics in general. I don't think we'll ever completely get away from this type of politics (and I'm not just talking about gender issues here).
57:
Wow, great piece of writing. I agree completely with the conclusions - as the article notes, the actions being used are universal, they just make this particular topic area even more difficult to work with. Universal problems require universal solutions. Sadly I'm not sure I see any way to do this,
2616:
PS: I've gone back through this editorial, and what sticks out most is this claim: "It becomes clear that the intention is not to improve content ... but to prevent the publication of content." There's no actual evidence to back this wild claim of censorious suppression; all there is is "I didn't
2099:
Having picked up on this essay at the GGTF, I have a few observations on this particular article which I've also edited. I became active after the BLP debate which led to the suppression of the accused's name. I personally disagree with that since he's pretty widely known and has personally gone
765:
Answer: the keyword is already here: "traditionally". Feminism is historically new thing. Any new thing has to struggle with tradition, to enforce their POV over a stereotype. Knowledge is merely a mirror of our society. Yes, we have to work to make wikipedia a better place, but without impatience
413:
A data analysis will ultimately be based on references to random talk pages, but yes, a broad analysis would be excellent. All I was saying was that, as a bare minimum, he should have supported each of his allegations with examples. The lack of evidence and the litany of jargon reminded me more of
2746:
could of learned a few things. The Gap it is there and always will be there. It is a man's world and always will be. Women are the weaker vessel and there is no disputing that. Men are very aggressive and women who try that will be brought down by other women. The old saying they eat their own is
2113:
In a more recent debate, there's been a concerted effort to reduce and qualify comments about the artwork by Camile Paglia, as quoted from a Salon Magazine interview. Paglia's opinion is not kind to the work, and that has created a lot of pushback by some editors who would rather we not quote so
1852:
is any indicator). But only the Education Department can just make the school give them all their court filings and go through it all, so until the report comes out, this investigation is just too nascent. Help us (yes, I work on this problem IRL) open these databases up to make journalism easier
1785:
He is right though. Publishing a screed, and not answering the critical questions raised against it, may help you sustain the funding you receive from your employer, but it doesn't do anything to improve the content offered by Knowledge to the public. Those who bothered to help preserve it in the
892:
This is excellent, very well-researched writing that exposes a major systemic problem with Knowledge. I've examined this topic of community, gender, and bias on Knowledge for a college class, and I agree that the Knowledge community needs to seriously rethink how it operates and how it determines
690:
I don't have a particular interest in whether or not information about campus sexual violence is included in a particular article, but one of the reasons I chose to republish this piece was because it raises provocative questions about why Wikipedians make the decisions they do. We label certain
277:
The pages in question are reasonably identified. You also have the user name to find out the discussions the author took part in. You are welcome to do your own research of the validity of the reported findings; for any wikipedian it would be a piece of cake. Then you try to publish it in Ada, if
1907:
The linked page doesn't help your case. The page as written is pushing the POV that the rape allegations by four students are false (Knowledge has a strange over-emphasis on "false rape" in many articles) and that the accused is the real victim. For example, it states inaccurately that "Columbia
1847:
is applicable for the reasons stated. The articles on the schools are large, and an investigation, not an accusation by the Department of Education (either in a report or administrative hearing), not an accusation by the Department of Justice (either in a report, administrative hearing, or court
1811:
attacks. Aside from being rude, they are self defeating because they allow the other person to ignore the substance of the argument. After the attacks are crossed out, I think my remaining text still severely weakens your claim that your experience reveals anything about Wikipedians in general.
206:
In this case, the point is precisely that "consensus" is not inherently balanced when those forming the consensus (who are, in fact, wikipedia editors, not outsiders or what they write, no matter how much we pretend otherwise) have an inhenrently imbalanced makeup. This response in an incredibly
160:
The author states that University of Oregon administrators were callous and robotic for saying "one time is too many" in reference to rape. Claiming that "one time is too many" is unreasonable, given that all catchphrases are, of necessity, simplifications, made me less receptive to the article.
2513:
I think it is unfair to actual victims of violence against men to apply the term so carelessly. Gender-neutral violence, sadly, usually affects men more. To me, violence against men is violence against someone because they're male or assumed to be male (women/non-binary assumed to be men can be
2215:
are any indication, the US political establishment has abdicated its role as a forum for common political debate. The establishment is setup nicely enough (except in California, which is the complete opposite to New York in that it completely fucks any non-rich person in counties other than San
1269:
has fewer than 30. If you are going to start linking up negative factoids on wikipedia pages in order to build a nation-wide case about something, it's best to start with the ones no one is watching. It is pretty interesting to look at the long list of defunct greeks on that page btw - lots of
2626:
in which the conspiracy theorist fantasizes up a conspiracy theory in the mind of "the Wikipedian", again an amorphous, unidentifiable, generalized nemesis: "The Wikipedian's assumption here is that the creation of the category was not driven by the verifiable, factual nature of the listing of
2548:
It's a pretty high bar to include mention of any controversy in any lead paragraph. The controversy generally needs to be a major or defining event for the subject at hand, not just one thing that happened to an otherwise large, complex, or old subject. The removal of these was probably well
2414:
get the same amount of kB for equality's sake may be anything, but it sure as hell will not lead to the end of history. Yes, crying out against injustice must be impossible, and that includes questioning the value and adequacy of certain norms, rules, and arguments. But that requires situating
2344:
I have not been involved in any of these discussions, but it seems to me that most participants were trying to honestly assess the information and the best way to present it; and they believe that Knowledge policies are there for a good reason. They don't deserve this smear. They have proposed
2039:
Every aspect of this needs to change, or women will continue to drift away or never arrive. Either we need a massive influx of women who won't tolerate it (which isn't going to happen), or we need male allies to speak up whenever they see it. It's very difficult to do that because you'll lose
582:
It is probably because "advocates for a cause" have nerve and energy to shout about deficiencies of wikipedia consensus process. True, the "advocates" collide with the rest of "wikipedia community" more strongly. But what do plain folks like me do when in a talk page discussion you present 4
2584:
problem, but this editorial missed both of them widely, and devolved almost immediately into an incoherent conspiracy theory. Just because not every imaginable approach to coverage of campus sexual violence is an encyclopedic approach doesn't mean that some good ol' boys' club of misogynist
2521:
I agree with that Knowledge policies are exclusive. Knowledge is biased to who writes it and we are seeing that our sources of knowledge exclude the knowledge of minority groups. Of course women and men aren't psychologically different but being treated differently leads to a different PoV.
2018:, the thread that runs through these issues is that women, and issues that matter to women, are regarded on Knowledge as the Other. We are not Self. One of the responses to the "have a beer then watch the sex tape" comment I mentioned above was illuminating. A woman objected to the remark.
2410:ā done away with. Sacrificing this world, how ever inconvinient and troublesome it may be, for a utopian vision which feeds from exactly those false and phony transcendent truths STS has been criticizing for roughly fifty years now cannot be the answer. An encyclopedia where women and men
2054:, right, an uncivil "civility" discussion. Not good. So, this is about behavioral issues, now, not content, which, theoretically should be right up the ArbCom's alley. Have these issues been taken to ArbCom, and if so, what is your general impression of how the ArbCom has dealt with it?
1514:
I don't dispute that off wiki criticism is worth including in the piece, but in the context of this Op-ed being a diatribe against Wikipedians and our plicies it would have made more sense to label those criticisms as from off wiki. I clicked on the link to see who on wikipedia has said
1399:
I might return to the article some time, to see if it actually says anything, apart from "I put some content on Knowledge and it was removed": but for the author's information 15 hours research does not make you an expert on campus rape, or campus gendered violence, or Title IX, or the
470:. The new paper can discuss how the 'bangvote' is coded trigger-phrase referencing copulation, and just like the citations-are-elsewhere-or-vaguely-mentioned work here, the new Sokal response can give ephemeral citations to now-admin-deleted pages about wikipetan and the now-verboten
878:
Yes. But the fact that he honestly doesn't understand that is I think the reason it was reposted here. The truth is that it is very hard to explain to passionate newbies that they may be barking up the wrong tree, no matter how many citations and reliable sources they come up with.
2025:
on her talk page for objecting, and on article talk a man asked what the problem was. A third replied that it might help to know that the complainant is "a female." There you have the Otherness in a nutshell, intended kindly in this case ā Achtung! a female has entered the locker
1873:
This op-ed was a difficult slog for me to read, as I'm not sure it adequately summarized the point(s) it was making. So I'll just comment on two of my takeaways from it. (1) Regarding the idea that men dominate Knowledge so as to suppress coverage of topics like campus rape, see
620:
There are also a surprisingly large and growing number of people in the world who read your mind, read between the lines, read in your face, etc. with the sole purpose to read there a personal insult towards them. if only this "number of people" read and follow our policy of
2635:? How could there be some right-winger cabal in control of Knowledge to fend off a "feminist conspiracy against ... universities" when the conventional far-right view is that universities are the collective den of feminism? And so on. The whole thing unravels very quickly.
1668:
debate policies and what they mean to the question at hand? That is like saying that politicians or participants in a trial should not be allowed to discuss the law. I am genuinely interested in figuring what it is you are complaining about, but I just can't make sense of
362:
need references to support this statement? On the other hand I do agree that the author did not provide any stats in support of the claim. And by the way, your request to provide links to talk pages in its support is pointless: to support a general statement one needs
1950:
made a video reconstruction of what she said happened. This prompted a suggestion on talk that some German IPs who had been editing the article might want to watch the video after having a beer. When a woman objected to the comments, she was told to watch her mouth.
1429:
Here, I want to note an important distinction between male privilege and misogyny. Where male privilege might be understood as a form of power granted to individuals based on assertions or assumptions about their gender, misogyny is the use of that power in acts of
645:"WP:THREATENING2MEN" made me laugh. Nice analysis of how the use of lawyering + "consensus" that allows fallacious arguments to win where they really shouldn't. i.e "it shouldn't be on Knowledge because it isn't on Knowledge". Needless to say, lots of detractors...
1110:
Oh no, those damn men (and they must be white too, right?) spending countless hours of their free time without any compensation to do boring and often frustrating editing tasks in Knowledge. How dare they. You have to be clueless if you still haven't figured why
2811:
As you can see, there is a total disconnect between your description of my thoughts and my edit summary. Did you use the wrong diff? If there's another explanation or some other diff and or quote(s) of me in that article, please clarify it for me. Thanks. --
531:
re: "the fix proposed was culture change" - yes and World Peace, too. Such things don't happen overnight. People who hadn't been around long enough do not notice how the overall atmosphere of discussions changed to better over last 5 years. We already have
161:
Happily for me, there was better content that followed, that was separate from university campus violence toward women. The latter is something that is distinct from Knowledge, and might not be the best focus for us at the moment, if we see more of this:
2415:
oneself within the landscape that is about to be renegotiated and accpeting the risk that, in the end, it might also be ourselves who will have to change or acknowledge our mistakes ā and not solely those who we have conveniently bxed as "the others".--
1880:. This topic was featured on Knowledge's main page in the "Did you know?" section. This is a controversial topic, as demonstrated by its extensive talk page archives, but the "men's club" here has not suppressed it. (2) Regarding categorization, yes,
1435:
The biggest issue is that the definitions of both "male power" and "mysogyny" are wrong. According to these Bryce's attempts to defend his edits were "misogynistic". And any power due to assertions or assumption of femaleness is an example of "male
2689:
about things that aren't "guy stuff". There's a reason that WP is dominated by coverage of sports, video games, rock stars, hot actresses, machines, warfare, business leaders, and other traditionally "dude"-leaning interests. It's not because men
606:
and Wikipedians altogether, due to Knowledge being so omnipresent in Web searches. Whether there is some critical mass at which people who prefer a respectful, polite atmosphere can no longer be ignored and pushed aside remains to be seen ... --
2340:
of the article, so they are not defining. If, however, U of C were commonly referred to in other contexts as "The University of Chicago, a university under investigation for Title IX violations," it would be defining. But, of course, it isn't.
1373:, it didn't name that site in the text. It would have been better if it had been clearer that this criticism was also elsewhere on the Internet, as currently written this could be misread as criticism from within the Knowledge community.
862:
This jumble of paragraphs has no head or tail, as far as I can see. Anyway, I read the author Ā«assumed that I could assert my male privilege through "wikilawyering" and wiki-policiesĀ». In other words, he started in bad faith, hoping to
2136:
Not everything that is true, interesting, newsworthy, or which needs to be discussed by society at large is encyclopedic. Other, better venues may exist. Where such things are worth mentioning in Knowledge, attention must be paid to
2653:
in nature, but the works he cites are not actually research in that field but two papers by largely the same researchers, on computer-mediated work collaboration; to the extent they have a social sciences component, they seem to be
1264:
Something else which may be helpful in future attempts to set the record straight: The link on the left hand side of your screen for "Page information" gives you the number of watchers. I noticed that <<Dartmouth College:
1083:
privilege." I'm simultaneously glad Google made Knowledge ubiquitous and disappointed these types wash up on our shores where we have to waste time cleaning their mess up. Thanks to Gamaliel for republishing this tripe sandwich.
2699:, it just male collective narcissism. It's not a conspiracy (and it does not posit one about women), it's just systemic apathy commingled with willful ignorance, a combination that, when it becomes self-congratulatory, we call
1993:
where the encyclopedia which prides itself on being NOTCENSORED, decides to censor by consensus. A look at "to censor or not" debates and comparison of cases where the consensus was censor vs. not censor, would be illuminating.
2459:-type argument against Thebrycepeake. If I am mistaken, could you please state your criticism in simple Bullet Points for Dummies. Otherwise I am afraid the answer can only be an equally long and fuzzy "flow of consciousness".
2216:
Fransisco city), but it was setup this way in the late 19th-early 20th century and has been forgotten and fallen into disuse. And for that, oddly enough, I blame everyone here more than the politicians; we should know better.
2452:
for its agenda, two authors whose theories and political stances are so radically opposed to each other with regard to this op-ed's theses that I find it hard to believe its author has thoroughly engaged with their relevant
155:'In the wake of a high-profile case, administrators callously and robotically rehearsed the "one time is too many" ā a catchphrase that through its rhetorical singularity renders campus sexual violence an "isolated issue"'
2782:. It has been brought to my attention that you wrote this article in 2015, and that it cites a diff of one of my edits. Unless I'm missing something, you either used the wrong diff or misquoted me. Here are the diffs:
1395:
I wonder exactly what "open peer review" means. I started reading the original article and found it so turgid had to give up. In one place it seemed to say that because Knowledge was misogynistic it was less gender
1043:
joint effort is doomed to contain bias if it has a majority of men running themāisn't that his implication? So what are we to do, rewrite almost every law in existence because a majority of men formulated them? -
2694:
women and want to keep them from writing articles on other things or minimize their proper representation within those topics, too; most of them simply can't be bothered to notice or care. It's not even male
1954:
In fairness to the editor who made the beer comment, I don't think he meant any harm, but the point is that men have difficulty noticing a locker-room atmosphere because it doesn't bother them. I added to
329:
So from what item in that contribution history can we conclude that debates on Knowledge's talk pages are about "the metapragmatic dimensions of inclusion as determined by Wikipedians with expertise"?--
478:
additional evidence of the hegemonic discourse spaken here -- until you have considered the metapragmatic discourse they truly represent which is a rebellious gender-neutral-language proletarian revolt
1500:
is a useful thing. The question of cultural hegemony and Knowledge is an idea worth thinking about, even if you are not an academic, and would tend to use simpler terminology to express your ideas. --
2383:
I have to admit that I do have a problem with the way a number of STS scholars are cited in this op-ed. And it is not merely the fact that this text does not seem to have a problem with quoting both
1611:. I'm not taking a lot of time to respond to comments, but felt obligated to respond to the accusation of "cherrypicking" here. Note that at the beginning of this debate for deletion/merge, that 1)
395:
I was making fun of my own ignorance. If you call it saving face, then yes: I admitted my stupidity and tried to decipher what I did not understand. How about ignoring jokes if you don't like them,
358:". Ah, that's an easy one: the author meant we spend more time on discussion of policies than of content. (And the word was used 5 times in the article (that's my contrib to metapragma:-)) Do you
263:. A journal which, apparently, favors namedropping of French philosophers over references to actual talk page discussions that would have served as evidence in a serious treatment of the topic.--
2177:
I don't think the author is disagreeing with that. Rather, they are pointing out that what is considered encyclopedic and suitable for Knowledge is currently very hetero-normative masculine.--
148:! It is I, Ellie, er, FeralOink, your frequent up voter on Quora. It is nice to see you here! After reading the title, and then this passage, I was uncertain if the entire thing were parody:
2827:
BTW, it was a sad day when your efforts to document campus sexual violence were defeated here. That needs fixing. The category should be restored, as well as the content on each article. --
1889:
1552:
The author has constructed a lot of generalities out of a handful of incidents and quotes, and ignored other facts that are hard to fit into the narrative. For example, he also created a
2807:
and edit summary: "Perfectly good content. Undue and recentism are very poor excuses. Heading changed to be more accurate. This matter applies to all the schools under investigation."
1553:
1171:. Recent politics about rape on campus is a major part of centuries old institutions. Knowledge who disagree with me are MISOGYNISTIC and need to be BANNED!" Grognard Extraordinaire
2242:
attack on Thebrycepeake, and I was surprised at myself. This is something I studiously avoid doing in Knowledge (not to mention real life); I believe strongly in the core policy of
1690:
So it appears that one editor was harassing you, and was reprimanded for it (and more recently has been threatened with blocking for violating the neutral point of view policy at
1214:
Let me just say that I really do love these quotes and yes, I can imagine how at times I may come across as a complete asshole. I like to tell myself that it happens only rarely.
662:
edit. But to try to put a sentence based on a single accusation in the lead of every single so-accused college or to create a category based on it is POV-pushing. We don't have
2316:
226:
But we can make an effort to move away from such tactics in our policy discussions. If you recognize yourself in some of the descriptions, please consider yourself chastized.
1336:, it looks like the writer confused the GGTF and gender-gap mailing list. Sue set up the mailing list. I set up the GGTF in 2013 and re-launched it in 2014, with help from
1270:
minorities tried and failed to sustain one over the decades. Only two murders listed! Ironically, Dartmouth was founded for American Indian youth, a factoid that was also
1039:
Is he saying that the mere act of consensus is biased because the majority of editors are male? Or that the idea was created by a majority of males? So then practically
945:
reliable sources were to be included, and those opposed were to either be deleted or noted in a voice other than Knowledge's. If only editors would uphold that consensus.
1892:(CREWE) is a Facebook group..." I'm thankful that, as yet, there are no colleges which are so well-known for the frequency of rape on campus that we define them by that.
2327:"Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio.
2269:
2258:
1233:
story of Greek drinking is that frats/men were able to support parties and buy booze, while sororities have for the most part been "dry" victorian-esque lady-like spaces
806:. What is your complaint about wikipedians with respect to this article? I looked into its talk page; at least the very bottom of it looks an extremely civilized talk.
1560:, but in this case the keep and delete votes were almost evenly divided. Ultimately the nominator withdrew the nomination without prejudice and redirected the list to
1564:, where prose coverage of the investigations could be developed, offered to help develop it, and had no objections to the eventual creation of "a decent article on
2287:
The real problem is that Thebrycepeake wants to broadcast his information with a megaphone, and when his desires run counter to what he calls WP:<POLICIES: -->
1730:, which you have contributed 6 edits to. While you were dreaming up slogans like "hegemony of the asshole consensus", other Wikipedians were getting things done.
445:
expressing our opinions here will change nothing, unless, as I wrote, someone is willing to scrutinize it in a critical reply submitted for publication to Ada.
2791:
34:
28:
867:
for what he felt was the superior good. Countless characters follow to show that his bad faith was ascertained and his gaming failed. Is my summary correct? --
729:
I don't think military/merchant vessels bias has anything to do with male POV pushing: I doubt that women flock here to write articles about cargo carriers.
58:
because policy change is itself subject to those same policies. I hope I don't sound too cynical, but the Wiki's immune response is astonishingly powerful.
2573:
setup: Either the author gets her way, in every single way, or WP is a wicked place to be publicly shamed. There were so many other ways to handle this.
784:- Please be careful with your phrasing: I don't label anything like that. As for "every videogame ever created" - I've seen lots of mockery about this.
2585:
douchebags is in control of Knowledge and is censoring the issue from our pages. What really happened was someone was trying, however inadvertently, to
568:
I've probably read this from every major advocacy group out there, from MRAs to Altmed folks to left and right wing mainstream political organizations.
2040:
wiki-friends, and you may even find that some women will defend whoever is being corrected, so the objector may end up feeling completely unsupported.
924:
441:
describing their personal encounter and personal conclusions drawn. In your words, yes, it is an opinion piece, regardless it is informed or not. And
2079:
1876:
1807:
I apologize for (unintentionally) misrepresenting your contribution to the topic; I didn't dig deep enough. You are right that I shouldn't be using
798:
re: " What scientific or historical consensus says that campus sexual violence is unimportant in the history of universities?" - I looked into the
2336:
When the University of Chicago is named in an article on the President's task force or on sexual assaults in colleges, the investigations are the
2254:
1112:
1517:"Accusing Knowledge culture of being 'trollish and misogynistic' is nothing less than a way to silence people who challenge mainstream feminism,"
1371:"Accusing Knowledge culture of being 'trollish and misogynistic' is nothing less than a way to silence people who challenge mainstream feminism,"
466:
is suggesting here, it is that a *new* Sokal paper be written up, and dutifully published in Ada, as the critical response to the above work by
381:
You have come to phase where you try to save face by sputtering random internet acronyms. Let's not waste other reader's time on that. Cheers.--
2518:
on Knowledge is extremely hostile and I don't think I'm qualified enough to speak on gender issues. I am learning to break free from that.
1439:
Second, why assume that anyone is confused by these terms? Especially when terms such as "metapragmatic universe" are introduced undefined.
2758:
1496:
Giving readers here access to how the circumstances surrounding Knowledge fit into the larger academic debates and discussions surrounding
1232:
483:
the misogynist overlord Jimbo and use of the singular they -- see also, the wikipedia trademark, and disputes about whether wikipetan is
1643:
1016:
782:
We label certain motives as an "agenda" and "POV-pushing" - like coming to Knowledge to include information about campus sexual violence
488:
186:
doesn't mean "anyone can say whatever they want". Knowledge is a consensus-based encyclopedia, not a blackboard anyone can write on. --
1468:
He is writing for a very different audience. I tried to wiki-link a lot of the terms his academic audience would be familiar with but
2477:
is a malapropism because it is applied to the use of Knowledge rules, not anything related to science. The right term is, of course,
2719:
2601:
2589:, meanwhile the actual facts they sought to include should actually be included, just in a more encyclopedic, less tabloid, manner.
663:
162:
17:
2786:
Your article "WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Knowledge" is found
1946:, who has been active there. The emphasis on talk has been that the four accusers are probably making things up. The woman behind
1909:
2586:
2142:
1078:
I, for one, always marvel at the pretentious foolishness of the crazy left. Knowledge is no bastion of right-wing patriarchal
2195:
1565:
911:
1516:
1370:
1442:
I intend to attempt to read the article again, in the hope that there is some substance in it. But it is exceedingly long.
2157:
2670:, i.e. ethnographic. Since when do Wikipedians form an ethnic group or anything like one anyway? WP is a self-selecting
667:
2801:, pointing to the existing article on 'Higher Education Institutions Announced in Title IX and Clery Investigation,'..."
2534:
2436:
get the same amount of kB for equality's sake may be anything, but it sure as hell will not lead to the end of history."
2247:
1526:
1380:
1317:
864:
2455:
I feel reaally stupid, but the only thing I got out of all the above is that it appears to be an extremely elaborate
2246:. I came to realize that it was a response to the extended incivility of this article. It is one massive failure to
2420:
1168:
820:
2682:
The frustrating thing is, this is all a total distraction from the real bias and gender gap problem on Knowledge.
2663:
1450:
1408:
1345:
63:
2836:
2821:
2766:
2728:
2610:
2558:
2538:
2496:
2468:
2424:
2356:
2225:
2202:
2163:
2094:
2063:
2046:
2002:
1968:
1942:
article and talk page have been unpleasant to work on, to the point where I took them off my watchlist. Pinging
1928:
1901:
1862:
1823:
1795:
1780:
1742:
1720:
1678:
1651:
1625:
1594:
1579:
1535:
1509:
1487:
1456:
1414:
1389:
1354:
1326:
1283:
1259:
1244:
1223:
1208:
1179:
1167:"I'm not going to address ANY of the rational arguments that people made for my category's deletion, and try to
1162:
1146:
1127:
1098:
1071:
1053:
1024:
1008:
994:
968:
954:
936:
918:
871:
849:
831:
815:
793:
775:
752:
738:
724:
706:
681:
654:
634:
615:
600:
577:
549:
526:
496:
454:
427:
408:
390:
376:
338:
324:
301:
287:
272:
250:
216:
201:
174:
135:
103:
89:
67:
2762:
2623:
1885:
1091:
799:
437:
extremely civilized discussions. Therefore I don't consider this text as a scientific article, but rather as a
194:
132:
2345:
reasonable alternatives, and there is no evidence that Knowledge policy is any barrier to implementing them.
2622:
to nominate anything for deletion; it's only something individual editors do. Here's a real doozy, a case of
540:. Throwing in more heavyweight bureaucracy IMO will not help much. How about enforcing what we already have?
2491:
2351:
1818:
1776:
1737:
1715:
1695:
1647:
1621:
1574:
1561:
1240:
1020:
492:
2832:
2817:
2138:
1925:
1791:
1674:
1521:
1375:
1333:
1312:
1132:
Sorry, faulty logic (if I read your irony correctly): the fact about "countless hours of their free time"
964:
932:
837:
650:
423:
386:
334:
297:
268:
2716:
2667:
2649:
says "This ethnography is not without its quantitative supporters", and cites previous work he feels is
2598:
2464:
2416:
2273:
2212:
2090:
1726:
1698:, and no one has challenged its content. There is also coverage of the investigation of universities at
1142:
1067:
1004:
990:
980:
845:
811:
803:
789:
771:
734:
630:
596:
545:
487:
by the WMF, aka the hermeneutic whipping-girl to the iron fist in the velvet glove, Sue Gardner! Best,
471:
450:
404:
372:
320:
283:
1585:
Thanks for posting that! That helps restore my faith in our (admittedly faulty) crowd-sourcing system.
2460:
1138:
1063:
1000:
986:
976:
841:
807:
785:
767:
730:
626:
592:
541:
467:
463:
446:
400:
368:
316:
279:
2754:
2642:
1639:
1447:
1405:
243:
59:
2268:
express doubt that the material belongs in article leads or in its own "controversies" section; or
351:
2646:
2581:
1085:
942:
574:
347:
237:
use of the term "asshole consensus", but wouldn't suggest that we use it in our discussions here.
187:
170:
145:
128:
115:
1613:
the person who opened this discussion was being reprimanded for harassing me across multiple other
763:
Why are those feminist interests labeled "POV-pushing" and not those traditionally masculine ones?
2779:
2747:
there for a reason. Hey it was women who did not come to her aid and let here be devoured in the
2487:
2444:" And it is not merely the fact that this text does not seem to have a problem with quoting both
2347:
2320:
2289:
2281:
2277:
2243:
2186:
1881:
1814:
1802:
1772:
1750:
1733:
1711:
1691:
1685:
1617:
1608:
1570:
1505:
1480:
1236:
902:
748:
720:
699:
622:
611:
583:
arguments to prove your point, you opponents find the weakest one and simply dismisses the rest?
533:
522:
2514:
victims of VaM and vice versa). It is a real thing but it doesn't apply in the Isla Vista case.
1554:
List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations
941:
On the contrary, the community decided long ago that statements supported by the peer reviewed
278:
only to figure out whether it is indeed "A Journal of Gender" or "A Journal of Female Gender".
2828:
2813:
2645:
is found throughout the piece. To just pick a paragraph at random: Peake, in criticizing WP's
2264:
2153:
2119:
2059:
1998:
1977:
1913:
1897:
1787:
1670:
1590:
1497:
1337:
1279:
1255:
1219:
1204:
1117:
1079:
1049:
960:
950:
928:
884:
646:
459:
419:
382:
330:
307:
the". For any wikipedian with 6 month of editing it would only take 10 minutes of lookin into
293:
264:
212:
99:
2710:
2592:
2530:
2401:
2293:
2221:
2086:
1943:
1858:
1366:
1341:
1158:
311:
to nail them all. I do agree with "long screed of no consequence" judgement, though. It was
308:
85:
1843:(Note I am still reading the article, these diatribes can be hard for me to read.) I think
1568:." At the time, the author seemed content with that decision. Knowledge is not monolithic.
2704:
2570:
2482:
2449:
2388:
2051:
2041:
1981:
1963:
1844:
1349:
1305:
1175:
1124:
927:
question. That discussion has been going on for over a decade. It's not going to happen.--
827:
238:
625:, esp. in the part "dealing with incivility", we'd had World Peace 'in dem Augenblick'.
2743:
2686:
2671:
2659:
2577:
2554:
1956:
1299:
676:
584:
569:
514:
438:
355:
166:
2211:, this is why Knowledge is bearing the brunt of these social issues. By and large, if
2628:
2396:
2178:
1501:
1473:
1059:
894:
868:
744:
716:
692:
607:
518:
484:
396:
2799:
claimed that the removal of information about campus sexual violence was disruptive
2748:
2738:
2445:
2384:
2301:
2172:
2146:
2115:
2055:
2015:
1994:
1935:
1893:
1604:
1586:
1275:
1251:
1228:
1215:
1200:
1045:
946:
880:
415:
208:
95:
76:
Looks to me like crude opinion masquerading as serious research, written from an
2787:
2650:
2638:
2526:
2217:
1854:
1849:
1424:
Let me just pick one excerpt that highlights the type of problem in this screed:
1154:
81:
2707:: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
2478:
1749:
I find your characterization of what āworkā I "didn't do" baseless and wrong
1172:
1121:
824:
2655:
2632:
2550:
2474:
2456:
2367:
1519:
and only after clicking the link I found out it wasn't on wikipedia at all.
1196:
1137:
the guise of NPOV policy they designed themselves to suit their interests".
1105:
Deletion of category for Schools under investigation for Title IX violations
671:
292:
No, they aren't. The whole piece is just a long screed of no consequence.--
2509:
should even be a section entitled "misogyny" given the "bias" of the term.
2332:"Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...".
1699:
1365:
The article rightly pointed out that one of the critical comments was on
1267:
has 171 watchers while <<Dartmouth College Greek organizations: -->
985:
Stricken (sorry, jumping to conclusions base on incomplete information.)
1706:
It appears that Knowledge policy is no barrier to coverage of this issue
1062:" and pay attention to the point that a bias is not always malevolent.
823:, so why can't we have campus sexual violence? Grognard Extraordinaire
1988:
is a complex, but interesting case. I just read the December 21, 2014
999:
Please explain in plain words what you wanted to say with your irony.
536:
policy; I've just reviewed it and find it decent. And the community
315:
where I failed to find suggestions how to fix the problem alleged.
2253:
For a glimpse of male hegemony in action, consider discussions at
1786:
face of the disruption you were causing, on the other hand, did.--
975:
is not cast in stone. Errors may be corrected, bias may be fixed.
588:
312:
2288:, he blames the policies. Consider, for example, the question of
1959:
that editors should bear in mind that "male is not the default,"
432:
Sorry for my sloppy writing: data analysis is to be based on a
1704:
And how many edits did you contribute to those articles? Zero.
1191:
2797:
Your statement (which contains my diff): "When a Wikipedian
1869:
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), and categorization
1708:- if you understand why it is there and how to work with it.
1369:, but while it linked to motherboard.vice.com for the quote
1113:
Category:Schools under investigation for Title IX violations
1890:
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Knowledge Engagement
1771:
civil and rational discussion. I leave you the last word.
207:
cheap shot at thoughtful essay on a very important issue.
122:, and shouldn't be used as the justification for deleting
2804:
2798:
2549:
justified and had nothing to do with any gender issue.
2440:"Yes, crying out against injustice must be impossible,"
2083:
2022:
2019:
1960:
1952:
1612:
1271:
1014:
537:
923:
You seem to be saying the community should settle the
959:
Riight. Because "reliable" is completely objective.--
743:
We don't? I would never have started otherwise.Ā :) --
261:
Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology
2238:In an earlier discussion on this page, I made an
163:Student's False Sexual Assault Claims Go to Trial
2259:University Sexual Assault Investigations in Lead
2213:my edits on the United States' political systems
2506:
2330:
2325:
2298:
1427:
2564:This editorial missed the forest for the trees
664:Category:People under investigation for murder
8:
670:, etc. either, for a whole host of reasons.
343:Wha...??? <45 sec of stunned silence: -->
184:the so-called "encyclopedia anyone can edit"
2752:
2587:inappropriately use Knowledge as a soapbox
1702:which has been stable for most of a year.
2662:(particularly concerned with distributed
2576:The sad thing is that there really are a
2525:Sorry if I misunderstood the article.Ā :(
2481:; or, if a more general term is desired,
1700:Title IX#Litigation after Grove City case
2323:is clear from the examples it provides:
2080:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
1877:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
1310:, not a WMF one started by Sue Gardner.
1118:not the same as to build an encyclopedia
1640:after I went around drumming up support
1566:Title IX sexual violence investigations
2432:" An encyclopedia where women and men
2366:The op-ed seems to take an issue with
2300:A defining characteristic is one that
1302:was a community initiative started by
1190:Thanks for using that graph about the
259:The piece was written for the journal
2290:defining characteristics of a subject
2078:Responding to Sarah's ping regarding
1298:One small point, I thought that the
1058:Please review the wikipedia article "
7:
2685:tend to be self-absorbed and simply
2473:As used in Thebrysepeake's article,
1186:Policies, WP speak and Women artists
418:than of an informed opinion piece.--
668:Category:Companies accused of fraud
354:in wikipedia. No such word. Found "
24:
2261:, where staunch hegemonists like
18:Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost
1556:. This, too, was subjected to a
27:
2647:consensus decision-making model
344:ROTFL. <wipe tears off: -->
1:
2837:17:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
2822:17:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
2708:
2590:
2311:define the subject as having.
2280:it is part of a multi-issue
983:) 22:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
233:BTW, I particularly like the
2729:05:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
2611:00:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
2559:20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
2539:05:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
2497:00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
2469:21:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
2425:22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2357:19:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2226:04:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2209:there are not better venues
2203:02:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2164:02:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2095:05:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
2064:23:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2047:22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2003:13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
1969:23:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1929:22:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1902:19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1863:18:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1824:19:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1796:19:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1781:19:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1743:17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1725:And I missed the big one -
1721:16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1679:14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1652:18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1626:12:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1595:07:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1580:06:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1536:08:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
1510:12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1488:02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1457:02:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1415:02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1390:20:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1355:21:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1327:19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1284:07:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1260:14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1245:13:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1224:17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1209:16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1180:22:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1163:01:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
1147:23:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1128:22:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1099:18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
1072:22:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1054:21:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
1025:18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1009:22:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
995:22:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
969:21:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
955:21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
937:21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
919:20:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
872:19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
850:16:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
832:02:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
816:22:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
794:22:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
776:22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
753:12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
739:22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
725:19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
707:19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
682:18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
655:17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
635:23:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
616:19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
601:17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
578:16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
550:21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
527:19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
497:18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
455:21:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
428:21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
409:21:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
391:20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
377:19:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
367:, not occasional examples.
339:18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
325:18:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
302:17:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
288:17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
273:16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
251:16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
217:10:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
202:16:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
175:02:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
136:16:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
104:21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
90:16:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
68:16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2853:
2668:culturally anthropological
591:is a significant factor.
2767:16:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
2664:organizational ergonomics
2624:psychological projection
2317:category deletion debate
2255:WikiProject Universities
2143:WP:Neutral point of view
1886:Category:Facebook groups
1884:applies here. I created
1642:" ... bangvoteĀ != vote.
925:deletionism-inclusionism
800:category:Sexual violence
2737:was her handle and the
2362:Scientism and the other
1696:Office for Civil Rights
1664:Why should Wikipedians
1562:Office for Civil Rights
1472:readers might not be.
462:, if I understand what
94:Which part(s) and why?
2511:
2334:
2329:
2313:
1432:
1153:The Great News! :D ---
838:Campus sexual violence
513:The fix proposed was "
397:avoid personal attacks
157:
2274:University of Chicago
1727:Campus sexual assault
804:Campus sexual assault
538:does not stop at that
434:representative sample
309:wikipedians' contribs
153:
2643:cognitive dissonance
2544:Controversy in leads
2197:See what I have done
1948:Mattress Performance
1346:The Vintage Feminist
913:See what I have done
346:. Step one: Look up
1178:Ping when replying
1169:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
830:Ping when replying
821:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
474:-- both themselves
2278:Occidental College
1962:but was reverted.
1882:Knowledge:Defining
1692:Planned Parenthood
1361:Off wiki criticism
46:Discuss this story
2774:Correction needed
2769:
2757:comment added by
2270:Editing Infoboxes
2248:assume good faith
2200:
2162:
2161:
2045:
1967:
1498:cultural hegemony
1486:
1460:
1418:
1353:
1334:WereSpielChequers
1080:heteronormativity
916:
802:and here you go:
705:
680:
460:User:Anders_Feder
2844:
2727:
2609:
2495:
2417:Toter Alter Mann
2408:once and for all
2402:Cyborg Manifesto
2355:
2302:reliable sources
2267:
2198:
2194:
2191:
2183:
2176:
2151:
2150:
2131:General comments
2044:
1966:
1923:
1918:
1822:
1806:
1741:
1719:
1689:
1578:
1533:
1529:
1524:
1483:
1478:
1476:
1455:
1413:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1367:Knowledge Review
1352:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1309:
1097:
1094:
1088:
914:
910:
907:
899:
702:
697:
695:
674:
468:User:Bryce_Peake
464:User:Staszek_Lem
345:<breathe: -->
246:
199:
192:
131:
38:
31:
2852:
2851:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2843:
2842:
2841:
2776:
2725:
2607:
2571:false dichotomy
2566:
2546:
2531:at your service
2505:
2486:
2364:
2346:
2262:
2236:
2196:
2187:
2179:
2170:
2139:WP:Undue weight
2133:
1919:
1914:
1871:
1840:
1813:
1800:
1732:
1710:
1683:
1569:
1558:deletion debate
1550:
1531:
1527:
1522:
1481:
1474:
1396:discriminatory.
1385:
1381:
1376:
1363:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1303:
1296:
1188:
1107:
1092:
1086:
1084:
912:
903:
895:
865:game the system
766:and pessimism.
700:
693:
249:
244:
195:
188:
127:
60:Maury Markowitz
54:
49:
48:
43:
36:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2850:
2848:
2840:
2839:
2809:
2808:
2802:
2795:
2775:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2759:172.58.137.140
2751:(Knowledge).
2744:Jerry Springer
2733:
2732:
2723:
2705:Hanlon's razor
2698:
2693:
2676:communications
2672:affinity group
2621:
2605:
2580:problem and a
2565:
2562:
2545:
2542:
2504:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2471:
2363:
2360:
2235:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2167:
2166:
2132:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2021:A male editor
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
1972:
1971:
1932:
1931:
1870:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1839:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1798:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1723:
1681:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1549:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1491:
1490:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1445:AllĀ theĀ best:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1403:AllĀ theĀ best:
1401:
1397:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1226:
1187:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1165:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1087:Chris Troutman
1076:
1075:
1074:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
997:
889:
888:
875:
874:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
818:
796:
778:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
710:
709:
685:
684:
658:
657:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
515:culture change
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
439:primary source
356:metapragmatics
352:meta-pragmatic
256:
255:
254:
253:
241:
228:
227:
222:
221:
220:
219:
180:
179:
178:
177:
151:
150:
149:
146:John Broughton
139:
138:
129:John Broughton
111:
110:
109:
108:
107:
106:
71:
70:
53:
50:
47:
44:
33:
32:
26:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2849:
2838:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2806:
2803:
2800:
2796:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2781:
2773:
2768:
2764:
2760:
2756:
2750:
2745:
2740:
2735:
2734:
2731:
2730:
2721:
2718:
2715:
2713:
2706:
2702:
2696:
2691:
2688:
2683:
2679:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2661:
2660:microeconomic
2657:
2652:
2651:enthnographic
2648:
2644:
2640:
2637:This kind of
2634:
2630:
2629:Conservapedia
2625:
2619:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2603:
2600:
2597:
2595:
2588:
2583:
2579:
2574:
2572:
2563:
2561:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2543:
2541:
2540:
2536:
2535:my good deeds
2532:
2528:
2527:Andrea Carter
2523:
2519:
2515:
2510:
2503:Some comments
2502:
2498:
2493:
2489:
2488:RockMagnetist
2484:
2480:
2479:Wikilawyering
2476:
2472:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2451:
2447:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2413:
2409:
2404:
2403:
2398:
2397:Donna Haraway
2393:
2390:
2386:
2381:
2378:
2372:
2369:
2361:
2359:
2358:
2353:
2349:
2348:RockMagnetist
2342:
2339:
2333:
2328:
2324:
2322:
2318:
2312:
2310:
2306:
2303:
2297:
2295:
2291:
2285:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2266:
2260:
2256:
2251:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2233:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2199:
2192:
2190:
2184:
2182:
2174:
2169:
2168:
2165:
2159:
2155:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2135:
2134:
2130:
2121:
2117:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2081:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2043:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2024:
2020:
2017:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1970:
1965:
1961:
1958:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1934:
1933:
1930:
1927:
1924:
1922:
1917:
1911:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1878:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1842:
1841:
1837:
1825:
1820:
1816:
1815:RockMagnetist
1810:
1804:
1803:Thebrycepeake
1799:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1773:Thebrycepeake
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1752:
1751:RockMagnetist
1748:
1744:
1739:
1735:
1734:RockMagnetist
1731:
1728:
1724:
1722:
1717:
1713:
1712:RockMagnetist
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1687:
1686:Thebrycepeake
1682:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1667:
1663:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1644:75.108.94.227
1641:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1618:Thebrycepeake
1614:
1610:
1609:RockMagnetist
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1576:
1572:
1571:RockMagnetist
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1548:Cherrypicking
1547:
1537:
1534:
1530:
1525:
1518:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1489:
1484:
1477:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1458:
1453:
1452:
1449:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1431:
1423:
1422:
1416:
1411:
1410:
1407:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1372:
1368:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1316:
1307:
1301:
1293:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1237:Thebrycepeake
1234:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1089:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:systemic bias
1057:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:75.108.94.227
1015:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
996:
992:
988:
984:
982:
978:
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
915:
908:
906:
900:
898:
891:
890:
886:
882:
877:
876:
873:
870:
866:
861:
860:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
834:
833:
829:
826:
822:
819:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
777:
773:
769:
764:
760:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
711:
708:
703:
696:
689:
688:
687:
686:
683:
678:
673:
669:
665:
660:
659:
656:
652:
648:
644:
636:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
581:
580:
579:
576:
573:
572:
566:
563:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
530:
529:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
498:
494:
490:
489:75.108.94.227
486:
482:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
435:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
417:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:
378:
374:
370:
366:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:metapragmatic
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:
252:
247:
240:
236:
232:
231:
230:
229:
224:
223:
218:
214:
210:
205:
204:
203:
200:
198:
193:
191:
185:
182:
181:
176:
172:
168:
164:
159:
158:
156:
152:
147:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
73:
72:
69:
65:
61:
56:
55:
51:
45:
42:
41:
30:
19:
2829:BullRangifer
2814:BullRangifer
2810:
2777:
2753:āĀ Preceding
2749:Sausage Fest
2739:Sausage Fest
2711:
2700:
2681:
2680:
2675:
2656:sociological
2636:
2593:
2582:WP:GENDERGAP
2575:
2567:
2547:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2507:
2483:pettifogging
2443:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2411:
2407:
2400:
2394:
2382:
2376:
2373:
2365:
2343:
2337:
2335:
2331:
2326:
2314:
2309:consistently
2308:
2304:
2299:
2286:
2265:SarahStierch
2252:
2239:
2237:
2208:
2188:
2180:
2023:told her off
1989:
1985:
1978:Sonicyouth86
1947:
1939:
1920:
1915:
1875:
1872:
1808:
1788:Anders Feder
1729:
1707:
1703:
1671:Anders Feder
1665:
1551:
1520:
1469:
1446:
1428:
1404:
1374:
1364:
1348:and others.
1338:Carolmooredc
1311:
1297:
1189:
1133:
1040:
973:
961:Anders Feder
943:WP:SECONDARY
929:Anders Feder
904:
896:
781:
762:
647:Battleofalma
570:
564:
480:
475:
443:waving hands
442:
433:
420:Anders Feder
383:Anders Feder
364:
359:
331:Anders Feder
294:Anders Feder
265:Anders Feder
260:
234:
196:
189:
183:
154:
123:
119:
116:WP:RECENTISM
114:I note that
80:position. -
77:
39:
2712:SMcCandlish
2639:doublethink
2594:SMcCandlish
2461:Staszek Lem
2321:WP:DEFINING
2292:. To quote
2282:Controversy
2276:, while in
2087:BoboMeowCat
1944:BoboMeowCat
1436:dominance".
1430:domination.
1342:BoboMeowCat
1139:Staszek Lem
1064:Staszek Lem
1001:Staszek Lem
987:Staszek Lem
977:Staszek Lem
842:Staszek Lem
840:" we have.
808:Staszek Lem
786:Staszek Lem
768:Staszek Lem
731:Staszek Lem
627:Staszek Lem
623:WP:CIVILITY
593:Staszek Lem
575:Talk to me!
542:Staszek Lem
534:WP:CIVILITY
447:Staszek Lem
416:Sokal paper
401:Staszek Lem
369:Staszek Lem
317:Staszek Lem
280:Staszek Lem
2453:writings."
2377:everyone's
2240:ad hominem
2189:Talk to me
1809:ad hominem
1451:Farmbrough
1409:Farmbrough
1306:SlimVirgin
905:Talk to me
239:Smallbones
2697:privilege
2633:Metapedia
2475:scientism
2457:tu quoque
2368:scientism
2294:WP:CATDEF
2284:section.
1910:consensus
1197:rush week
677:reactions
571:Winner 42
245:smalltalk
167:FeralOink
2755:unsigned
2450:Bourdieu
2430:WHA...?
2389:Bourdieu
2305:commonly
2244:civility
2181:3family6
2158:contribs
1990:NY Times
1986:Mattress
1940:Mattress
1845:WP:UNDUE
1532:Chequers
1502:Djembayz
1475:Gamaliel
1470:Signpost
1386:Chequers
1323:Chequers
1013:Perhaps.
897:3family6
745:Djembayz
717:Djembayz
694:Gamaliel
608:Djembayz
519:Djembayz
485:WP:OWNed
472:trifecta
235:academic
124:anything
78:a priori
52:Untitled
2805:My diff
2687:WP:DGAF
2666:), not
2578:WP:BIAS
2434:finally
2412:finally
2338:subject
2315:In the
2234:Uncivil
2173:Davidwr
2147:davidwr
2116:Mattnad
2056:Wbm1058
2016:Wbm1058
1995:Wbm1058
1957:WP:TALK
1936:Wbm1058
1894:Wbm1058
1300:WP:GGTF
1272:deleted
1046:kosboot
947:EllenCT
585:WP:DGAF
481:against
476:clearly
209:CircƩus
144:Hello,
96:EllenCT
37:Back to
2701:stupid
2446:Latour
2395:After
2385:Latour
2218:Int21h
1938:, the
1926:(talk)
1855:Int21h
1176:(talk)
1155:Zemant
1134:per se
836:Huh? "
828:(talk)
360:really
118:is an
82:Sitush
2780:Bryce
2620:group
2438:....
2052:Sarah
2042:Sarah
2026:room.
1982:Sarah
1964:Sarah
1916:Sonic
1850:PACER
1838:UNDUE
1669:it.--
1528:Spiel
1382:Spiel
1350:Sarah
1319:Spiel
1268:: -->
1266:: -->
1173:Chess
1122:Pudeo
825:Chess
666:, or
589:tl;dr
365:stats
313:tl;dr
190:Green
126:. --
120:essay
40:Op-ed
16:<
2833:talk
2818:talk
2792:here
2790:and
2788:here
2763:talk
2692:hate
2658:and
2641:and
2631:and
2555:talk
2551:Gigs
2492:talk
2465:talk
2448:and
2442:...
2421:talk
2387:and
2352:talk
2307:and
2222:talk
2207:No,
2154:talk
2141:and
2120:talk
2091:talk
2060:talk
1999:talk
1980:and
1898:talk
1859:talk
1819:talk
1792:talk
1777:talk
1738:talk
1716:talk
1675:talk
1648:talk
1622:talk
1607:and
1605:Jane
1591:talk
1587:Jane
1575:talk
1523:Ļ¢ere
1506:talk
1482:talk
1448:Rich
1406:Rich
1400:OCR.
1377:Ļ¢ere
1314:Ļ¢ere
1294:GGTF
1280:talk
1276:Jane
1256:talk
1252:Jane
1241:talk
1229:Jane
1220:talk
1216:Jane
1205:talk
1201:Jane
1159:talk
1143:talk
1093:talk
1068:talk
1050:talk
1021:talk
1005:talk
991:talk
981:talk
965:talk
951:talk
933:talk
885:talk
881:Jane
869:Nemo
846:talk
812:talk
790:talk
780:re:
772:talk
761:re:
749:talk
735:talk
721:talk
701:talk
672:shoy
651:talk
631:talk
612:talk
597:talk
565:Yawn
546:talk
523:talk
493:talk
451:talk
424:talk
414:the
405:talk
387:talk
373:talk
335:talk
321:talk
298:talk
284:talk
269:talk
213:talk
171:talk
133:(ā«ā«)
100:talk
86:talk
64:talk
2778:Hi
2726:ā±·ā¼
2722:ā½ā±·Ņ
2608:ā±·ā¼
2604:ā½ā±·Ņ
2399:'s
2296:,
2257:on
2156:)/(
2145:.
2085:.--
1666:not
1603:Hi
1332:Hi
1265:-->
1192:RKD
1116:is
1041:any
350:or
165:.--
2835:)
2820:)
2765:)
2709:ā
2591:ā
2557:)
2537:)
2533:|
2485:.
2467:)
2423:)
2224:)
2201:)
2193:|
2093:)
2062:)
2001:)
1900:)
1861:)
1794:)
1779:)
1677:)
1650:)
1624:)
1593:)
1508:)
1344:,
1340:,
1282:)
1258:)
1243:)
1222:)
1207:)
1161:)
1145:)
1120:.
1070:)
1052:)
1023:)
1007:)
993:)
967:)
953:)
935:)
917:)
909:|
848:)
814:)
792:)
774:)
751:)
737:)
723:)
653:)
633:)
614:)
599:)
548:)
525:)
495:)
453:)
426:)
407:)
389:)
375:)
337:)
323:)
300:)
286:)
271:)
215:)
173:)
102:)
88:)
66:)
35:ā
2831:(
2816:(
2794:.
2761:(
2724:į“„
2720:Ā¢
2717:ā
2714:āŗ
2606:į“„
2602:Ā¢
2599:ā
2596:āŗ
2553:(
2529:(
2494:)
2490:(
2463:(
2419:(
2354:)
2350:(
2263:@
2220:(
2185:(
2175::
2171:@
2160:)
2152:(
2149:/
2122:)
2118:(
2089:(
2058:(
1997:(
1921:Y
1896:(
1857:(
1821:)
1817:(
1805::
1801:@
1790:(
1775:(
1740:)
1736:(
1718:)
1714:(
1688::
1684:@
1673:(
1646:(
1638:"
1620:(
1589:(
1577:)
1573:(
1504:(
1485:)
1479:(
1459:.
1454:,
1417:.
1412:,
1308::
1304:@
1278:(
1254:(
1239:(
1218:(
1203:(
1157:(
1141:(
1125:'
1096:)
1090:(
1066:(
1048:(
1019:(
1003:(
989:(
979:(
963:(
949:(
931:(
901:(
887:)
883:(
844:(
810:(
788:(
770:(
747:(
733:(
719:(
704:)
698:(
679:)
675:(
649:(
629:(
610:(
595:(
544:(
521:(
491:(
449:(
422:(
403:(
385:(
371:(
333:(
319:(
296:(
282:(
267:(
248:)
242:(
211:(
197:C
169:(
98:(
84:(
62:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
