Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/Single/2015-08-19

1770:

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.

76:, interesting article. Can you clarify whether these categories were based on edits to WP as a whole each day or edits to the Shooting article in specific? The most curious finding to my eyes was the comparative lack of edits in the verdict's traffic spike, which is kind of amazing and worth communicating to those worried about editor dropoff. On one hand, it's logical that there's not much new info to add apart from the verdict itself, but one would think that the pure number of eyeballs (traffic) would remind more editors to fix citations and clean the whole thing up, similar to how it first started. (Was the page protected in the traffic spike periods? Would be worth noting.) A bunch of empty pages are enticing to edit, especially to users who may know something about the topic, but once an article starts to build up, there's less a reason (or "need") to bulk it up. I'd also posit that featured articles, with their length and "brilliant" verbosity, look so pristine that editors are naturally discouraged from touching them, feeling no need to disrupt the order. If you do continue with the qualitative analysis, I would be curious whether the WMF finds that people read more/less of an article when it reaches that saturation state, or if it just makes them read the lede and skim one or two relevant parts instead of reading as much as they would of a smaller article. I've written lots of peer reviewed content here and I find that my own eyes glaze over at the walls of perfectly cited text, so I've come to prefer concision over completeness. It's one thing to worry about editor participation (as tied to rate of edits) and another to question how content quality actually affects the end product: readers reading. – 1288:

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.

1136:". 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. -- 684:

people who are more popular have more friends, or that dogs with more fleas have a greater incidence of small, itchy bites on them. Far more interesting actual research would have been a multi-valued comparison – rates of addition, removal, reversion, etc, change in number of editors, of anonymous editors, of administrative, RfC, and noticeboard actions, etc., ratio of edits to talk page posts, ratio of sources to word-count, ratio of secondary to primary sources, number of additions and removal of citations to separate sources, change in complexity level of language, splitting vs.consolidation of topically-related articles, and so on – between topics that are: a) politically but not scientifically controversial; b) scientifically but not politically controversial ; c) both politically and scientifically controversial; d) neither politically nor scientifically controversial but controversial for some other known reason (religious objection, legal action, celebrity scandal, etc.). It would probably help if it used an actually statistically significant number of articles, too.

2103:

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.

1754:, 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 2314:

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

1724:

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 "

2806:

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.

2440:, 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. 2319:(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. 2372:. 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. -- 3042:] '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> ... 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 3102:(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. 3051:

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

2827:

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 – Wikipedians, Men, hegemonists, ignorants, formalists, etc. – 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.

2227:. 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 – near verbatim from the ones I included in other pages – 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. 1758:. 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. 1786:. 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. 2530:. 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: 2545:

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.

2687:. 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. 546:

editing environment". It could be principally a factor of women, on average, having different priorities than their male counterparts. Getting in incessant debates about the wording seems to be a pastime that attracts a significantly male-heavy group of self-selecting participants, and that has little to do with WP in particular. The same effect can be seen everywhere, from participation in online forums, to number of woman academics in the sciences, and any other subculture that spends a great deal of time engaging in often unproductive verbal combat.

3164:

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.

2810:

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 – 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

2709:, 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 1030:, 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? 1728:", 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. 1782:

organizations>> 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 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

2756:, 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 3098:. 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 2815:

from the countless wikilegal, wikipolitical, and wikitechnical arguments brought forth by countless Wikipedians who hardly qualify as "Men™" (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?

1310:+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. -- 2990:

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

2559:

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.

1198:: 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 2049: 529:'s statements about feeling harassed, I have to take issue with Morwen's reasoning here: "eventually the toxic environment started ripping Knowledge apart from the inside. Over the next five years, the number of Knowledge editors shrank by over a third, with most of those that left being women." There are three obvious logic problems in this: 1462:

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.--

3127:. 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 2368:

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

537:

and more challenging as policies have evolved to move it toward serious, professional-level encyclopedia output instead of a free-wheeling experiment; and c) most of the obvious, easy, and hot-topic articles have already long since been written and developed, leaving mostly highly competence-intensive work remaining to be done.

2841:

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 –

2351:, 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: " 93:

the first place, and this correlation (or lack thereof) may suggest the divide is more obvious than we think. That's for another study though. ;) It's definitely an idea to do a more technical, quantitative study in the future to look at the more Knowledge-specific issues that arise from this work. —

2172:- 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 688:

and guidelines that specifically address the "controversial topic" factor. What we don't have data on (that I know of) is where there are quantifiable differences between different sorts of controversies. Whoever makes this your dissertation/thesis, please credit me with the idea in a footnote. :-)

3163:

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

3158:

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

2944:

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

1213:

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

683:

I have a hard time fathoming why anyone got paid to do 'research' concluding 'topics we consider politically but not scientifically “controversial” ... experience more frequent edits with more words changed per day than pages we consider “noncontroversial” '. This is rather like concluding that

536:

There's no evidence linking gyno- or transphobia to a decline in editorship. Much has been published about WP's editorial ranks decline, and it principally seems to be a combination of three factors: a) The "gee whiz, what's this new thing?" feeling has worn off; b) WP editing has become more serious

532:

WP has not "torn itself apart" over alleged misogyny or transphobia. Awareness of both and what to do about them are at an all-time high here. They're certainly taken more seriously here than on much of any other site where anyone can have their say. The average social networking site or webboard is

396:

Sure ArbCom can get troubling (See the Lightbreather case), but I am getting tired of this whole thought that Knowledge is Anti-women. For Gods sake the internet is full of people who say terrible things just to get a reaction from others. I'm just overall disappointed by this article and wish it was

392:

All right. Multiple things I want to say this article because I am dumbfounded. Firstly, for a humor website like Cracked claims to be, this was the complete opposite of the definition of humor. Second, saying that Knowledge hates women is a generalization and a gross claim to make. Yes Knowledge has

103:

Just realised I never actually responded to your question! The editors were placed into these categories based on their overall editing history. The metric is intentionally simple and does not take into account long periods of inactivity, and is likely to be skewed by the use of automated tools; this

3108:

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

2989:

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

2935:

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

2840:

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

2805:

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

2244:

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 “the real work” – itself a description with a long gendered legacy – signal the end of a

2102:

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

1769:

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

1674:

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

1260:

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

952:

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

414:

Regarding your last point, I almost mentioned in the article that she had made some "post-retirement" edits, but I decided it was irrelevant. A lot of editors who have spent years of daily or near-daily activity on Knowledge consider themselves "retired" even though they still edit occasionally. A

2826:

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

2814:

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

2809:

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,

2448:

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,

1723:

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)

1655:

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

1624:

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

1531:

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

1180:

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

1061:

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

882:

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).

733:

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,

488:

followed by "out of fear of real-life consequences". Let's keep it real here, there are people who edit articles on mathematics, medicine, and politics, then there are people who edit articles on entertainment, and the reasons they primarily choose one or the other is not consequences, it's ability

3035:

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

2544:

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

1351:

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

1041:

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

687:

I don't think anyone needed any kind of "study" showing that politically controversial topics get edited more. Any sane person would have confidently predicted that, and any even slightly experienced editor (or regular reader, for that matter) already knows this is true on WP, and we have policies

92:

The protection hypothesis is a good one though. I imagine the edit rates remaining relatively low even in high-traffic periods might also have to do with the divide which currently exists between "readers" and "editors"—still an incredibly high number of readers don't even realise they can edit in

3271:

Input to the Visual Editor team appears to have worked in one instance. Adding citations is the big barrier for new editors at editathons, and this is a task where Visual Editor can be helpful. The Visual Editor citation tool is now much, much improved, and it fills in citations automatically for

3168:

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

2558:

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

2318:

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

2256:

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

1461:

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

1287:

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

929:

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

104:

was the easiest method, however, of organising users in a way that is accessible to the professors I was targeting the dissertation to. Hope that makes sense. (The editors whose edits were studied in the dissertation are listed at the end—there were more than 600, so it's a long list. ;) ) —

2367:

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

2313:

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

2279:

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.

866:

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

825:

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.

545:

true that any individual female editor is at least slightly more likely to leave than a male one (though I'm not sure we have any data to back that up either), but more than one reason has been suggested (including by women, mind you) for why this might be true, and it's not all about "a hostile

461:

that explicitly demonizes all opposing points of view as automatically evil. I would take any social justice pieces on Cracked through a very heavy grain of salt. This article is no different; they found a single editor who was willing to help them push their agenda, and they ran with it without

2940:

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

2845:– 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 2655:

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

88:

Since this is a study conducted in my volunteer time (indeed, as part of my studies!), I'll reply with this account. Thanks for your questions. I should start by saying that this study was addressed to journalism professors and not those with much technical background, so a lot of the technical

3050:

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

2972:

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

2849:

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

2781:

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

2492:

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:

The writers failed to consider a yet another possibility. It is written: "Dr. Blofeld cited eleven sources". All of them predate the 2012 application by a wide margin. I know Dr. Blofeld, but I don't know DotMusic, and I'd rather assume that Dot ripped off the same sources (or sources further

1193:

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

3005:

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

2948:

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.

551:

I have to suggest that the third factor is key here. Providing things to do here, different ways to contribute, that are more interesting to more women that constant verbal chest-beating, is the real way to increase the number of female editors and increase WP's long-term retention of them.

197:

Color me impressed that they've been preserved for over a century too...while not exactly flimsy if built correctly, set models have lots of little handcrafted pieces that could very easily be lost to improper care over time. Super neat, thanks for the fabulous stagecraft history find here,

2471:, 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. 1781:

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>> has 171 watchers while <<Dartmouth College Greek

2505:, 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? 2008:

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

1902:

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

1092:. 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 3036:

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 [

1447:

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.

2478:

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 – Achtung! a female has entered the locker

2336:

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

1225:

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

3059:? 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. 2149:

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

999:

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

2408:

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.

1930:

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

1247:"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... 1650:

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

3230:

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. --

2850:

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 – and not solely those who we have conveniently bxed as "the others".--

1147:

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

3547:! I have long been a real admirer of your work, and I am truly fascinated and inspired by your efforts to see the subjects of articles that you have created/improved in real life. Thanks again for everything that you do, and a most happy belated birthday! 826:

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:

2343:. 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, 1936:

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

393:

a gender gap. God help I would like to see a female editor or two being part of the Video Game WikiProject. But to say that Knowledge hates women is like saying that Knowledge is a complete encyclopedia. Both false and claims that will never be true.

3113:

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

1214:

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 ... --

2777:

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.

3262: 1878:, 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. 124: 1433:

This jumble of paragraphs has no head or tail, as far as I can see. Anyway, I read the author «assumed that I could assert my male privilege through "wikilawyering" and wiki-policies». In other words, he started in bad faith, hoping to

3516:

Thank you again for contributing this piece. I don't see a lot of comments here so I hope the heat from this week's op-ed didn't distract from your travelogue. I hope you contribute again, perhaps with your next trip, or perhaps our

2581:

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

3329: 3077:

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

1625:

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.

3123:, 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 2449:

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.

2891:-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". 379: 2724:

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>, he blames the policies. Consider, for example, the question of

2656:

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.

540:

There's no data to back the idea that most departing editors are women. It cannot possibly be true because the percentage of editors who are women has not sharply dropped, yet the number of editors in total has. It probably

2884:

3469: 820:'In the wake of a high-profile case, administrators callously and robotically rehearsed the "one time is too many" – a catchphrase that through its rhetorical singularity renders campus sexual violence an "isolated issue"' 3201:. 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: 1898:

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

462:

bothering to interview other members of the community. It was absolutely a one-sided push piece. Combating stupidity is a good thing; combating stupidity with more stupidity only causes the stupidity level to rise.

1591:

joint effort is doomed to contain bias if it has a majority of men running them—isn't that his implication? So what are we to do, rewrite almost every law in existence because a majority of men formulated them? -

719: 346:

I'm not a Guanche, so no further nitpicks. An observation, though: I believe this is the first time in recorded memory that the words "Birtwistle" and "melody" have been used in the same sentence; well done.

57: 3118:

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

2412:

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

972:

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"?--

1100:

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

1997:

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. --

400:

And one more thing. I don't like her claim that she left Knowledge after the ArbCom case even though she still made little edits here and there. Including making a Draft page of video game journalist

2818:

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

2098:. 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) 1026:

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,

995:". 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 918:. 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.-- 2620:

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.--

444:

That's a good point. But I will say that the piece makes it sound like she full out stopped editing. The entire article irks me as a whole and just makes Knowledge look like a terrible place.

813:! 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: 3243:

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. --

2352: 3272:

many websites. Improved citations, combined with improved speed of response, are making Visual Editor a viable option for in-person editing events. Hope that this progress will continue! --

3258: 2044:

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

120: 618:

In any case Murphy's accusations of plagiarism are contestable. (i.e. the above is an answer to Murphy's challenge "If there’s an innocent explanation for that, I’d love to hear it.")

3226:

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."

2045: 1703:. 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 3325: 2679:

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

2168:

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

1740:

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.

1261:

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

2753: 375: 883:

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.

601:"Under such structured context music consumption becomes possible regardless whether the transaction is commercial and non-commercial (M. Talbot, Business of Music, 2002). " 1843:, 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 3465: 1587:

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

1508:

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.

2355:(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. 2764:"Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. 2706: 2695: 1756:

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

1386:. 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. 2052:, 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 404:

which she also admitted to be a friend of hers. Saying you left Knowledge while making some edits here and there doesn't constitute leaving Knowledge, in my opinion.

282:, no tunes? Ahem. Considering the number of times I have come to grief attempting to whistle "Trema per te" or "Tu che le vanità" (trust me, you don't want to hear 3521: 3518: 2056:, 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 2206:, 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. 1070:

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.

3210: 715: 420: 1438:

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? --

89:

aspects are explained in as simple terms as I can (which means I purposely avoided taking about page protection and so forth, which are niche Knowledge terms).

1321:

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.

354: 293: 53: 734:

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.

667:

Well, given that less than 10% of all editors have been women, if 1/3 (33%) of the editors left over a five year period, they can't mostly have been women.

510: 2994:

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.

1367:- 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. 3006:

douchebags is in control of Knowledge and is censoring the issue from our pages. What really happened was someone was trying, however inadvertently, to

1181:

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.

2493:

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.

1490: 1066:

describing their personal encounter and personal conclusions drawn. In your words, yes, it is an opinion piece, regardless it is informed or not. And

2527: 2339: 2275:

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

21: 1378:

re: " What scientific or historical consensus says that campus sexual violence is unimportant in the history of universities?" - I looked into the

2773:

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

2691: 1652: 2011:"Accusing Knowledge culture of being 'trollish and misogynistic' is nothing less than a way to silence people who challenge mainstream feminism," 1876:"Accusing Knowledge culture of being 'trollish and misogynistic' is nothing less than a way to silence people who challenge mainstream feminism," 1088:

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

1015:

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.--

306:

Your nitpicks have been passed to the management, who have amended the statements and chastised the editors. "And now on Radio 3 some notes by

457:

push pieces up to 11. They have a lot of good pieces, but they have a lot of pieces that push an agenda, quite often through a thick lens of

211: 145: 2945:

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.

1940:

Second, why assume that anyone is confused by these terms? Especially when terms such as "metapragmatic universe" are introduced undefined.

3180: 1993:

Giving readers here access to how the circumstances surrounding Knowledge fit into the larger academic debates and discussions surrounding

473: 1755: 1105:

the misogynist overlord Jimbo and use of the singular they -- see also, the wikipedia trademark, and disputes about whether wikipetan is

3450: 3419: 3389: 2127: 1567: 1365:

We label certain motives as an "agenda" and "POV-pushing" - like coming to Knowledge to include information about campus sexual violence

1110: 848:

doesn't mean "anyone can say whatever they want". Knowledge is a consensus-based encyclopedia, not a blackboard anyone can write on. --

453:

I say this with hesitance, because it will make me look like an bigot (I'm not!) but, in the past few years, Cracked has cranked up the

1967:

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

3356:"its $ 56 million opening weekend gross was higher than those for Terminator Genisys and Pixels combined" Yikes, faint praise indeed! 186:

There's actually a number of them on the Gallica site, ready for use. I'd like to bring a lot more over. It was a very exciting find.

2906:

is a malapropism because it is applied to the use of Knowledge rules, not anything related to science. The right term is, of course,

3143: 3022: 3010:, meanwhile the actual facts they sought to include should actually be included, just in a more encyclopedic, less tabloid, manner. 1262: 827: 700: 564: 256: 17: 3205:

Your article "WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Knowledge" is found

518: 2404:, who has been active there. The emphasis on talk has been that the four accusers are probably making things up. The woman behind 2369: 3007: 2587: 1620:

I, for one, always marvel at the pretentious foolishness of the crazy left. Knowledge is no bastion of right-wing patriarchal

2638: 2057: 1480: 3408: 2010: 1875: 1943:

I intend to attempt to read the article again, in the hope that there is some substance in it. But it is exceedingly long.

3404: 2602: 315: 227: 3094:, i.e. ethnographic. Since when do Wikipedians form an ethnic group or anything like one anyway? WP is a self-selecting 1266: 3220:, pointing to the existing article on 'Higher Education Institutions Announced in Title IX and Clery Investigation,'..." 2961: 2868:

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."

2684: 2020: 1885: 1826: 1435: 348: 287: 2887:

I feel reaally stupid, but the only thing I got out of all the above is that it appears to be an extremely elaborate

2683:. I came to realize that it was a response to the extended incivility of this article. It is one massive failure to 3564: 3436: 2855: 1700: 1397: 3361: 3106:

The frustrating thing is, this is all a total distraction from the real bias and gender gap problem on Knowledge.

3087: 1952: 1912: 1852: 739: 635: 214: 148: 2400:

article and talk page have been unpleasant to work on, to the point where I took them off my watchlist. Pinging

1699:"I'm not going to address ANY of the rational arguments that people made for my category's deletion, and try to 3552: 3184: 3047: 2348: 1633: 1379: 1062:

extremely civilized discussions. Therefore I don't consider this text as a scientific article, but rather as a

856: 799: 467: 311: 223: 2782:

reasonable alternatives, and there is no evidence that Knowledge policy is any barrier to implementing them.

3046:

to nominate anything for deletion; it's only something individual editors do. Here's a real doozy, a case of

1156:. Throwing in more heavyweight bureaucracy IMO will not help much. How about enforcing what we already have? 983:

Wha...??? <45 sec of stunned silence> ROTFL. <wipe tears off> <breathe>. Step one: Look up

716:

WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Knowledge's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus

3452: 3391: 3288: 2920: 2788: 2286: 2250: 2213: 2193: 2173: 2131: 2108: 2066: 2053: 1763: 1571: 1114: 672: 44: 3248: 3236: 2583: 2385: 2262: 2155: 2015: 1880: 1840: 1821: 1670:

Sorry, faulty logic (if I read your irony correctly): the fact about "countless hours of their free time"

1524: 1498: 1411: 1252: 1051: 1020: 977: 946: 923: 454: 136:

set design image is fantastic; it's the first such image I've ever seen on Knowledge, let alone as an FP.

72: 3560: 3432: 3428: 3140: 3091: 3073:

says "This ethnography is not without its quantitative supporters", and cites previous work he feels is

3019: 2896: 2851: 2710: 2652: 2538: 2202: 2176:, and no one has challenged its content. There is also coverage of the investigation of universities at 1680: 1612: 1558: 1547: 1537: 1419: 1391: 1383: 1372: 1357: 1326: 1235: 1207: 1161: 1109:

by the WMF, aka the hermeneutic whipping-girl to the iron fist in the velvet glove, Sue Gardner! Best,

1093: 1075: 1035: 1009: 966: 935: 697: 623: 612: 588: 561: 250: 2075:

Thanks for posting that! That helps restore my faith in our (admittedly faulty) crowd-sourcing system.

2892: 1676: 1608: 1554: 1543: 1533: 1415: 1387: 1368: 1353: 1322: 1231: 1203: 1157: 1089: 1085: 1071: 1031: 1005: 962: 931: 619: 608: 584: 3483: 3357: 3315: 3176: 3066: 2123: 1948: 1908: 900: 735: 712: 654: 631: 629:

The allegations are a form of trolling. I'm surprised they weren't ignored. All the best:

445: 405: 203: 177: 137: 2705:

express doubt that the material belongs in article leads or in its own "controversies" section; or

988: 484:

I was willing to give the article a fair go, until I got to "focus on articles about entertainment"

3548: 3070: 3002: 1627: 1505: 1187: 984: 894:

use of the term "asshole consensus", but wouldn't suggest that we use it in our discussions here.

849: 835: 810: 795: 782: 506: 463: 340: 307: 2100:

the person who opened this discussion was being reprimanded for harassing me across multiple other

1349:

Why are those feminist interests labeled "POV-pushing" and not those traditionally masculine ones?

3532: 3494:

Yes Happy Birthday and thanks for all of those arts-related articles! I for one appreciate them!

3445: 3384: 3372: 3345: 3284: 3277: 3198: 3169:

there for a reason. Hey it was women who did not come to her aid and let here be devoured in the

2916: 2876:" And it is not merely the fact that this text does not seem to have a problem with quoting both 2784: 2757: 2726: 2718: 2714: 2680: 2629: 2344: 2282: 2270: 2246: 2224: 2209: 2189: 2169: 2163: 2104: 2095: 2062: 2002: 1979: 1759: 1471: 1337: 1315: 1296: 1227: 1219: 1194:

arguments to prove your point, you opponents find the weakest one and simply dismisses the rest?

1149: 1141: 668: 434: 401: 2941:

victims of VaM and vice versa). It is a real thing but it doesn't apply in the Isla Vista case.

2046:

List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations

1504:

On the contrary, the community decided long ago that statements supported by the peer reviewed

930:

only to figure out whether it is indeed "A Journal of Gender" or "A Journal of Female Gender".

3544: 3511: 3499: 3244: 3232: 3128: 3069:

is found throughout the piece. To just pick a paragraph at random: Peake, in criticizing WP's

2701: 2598: 2564: 2510: 2454: 2433: 2373: 2360: 2258: 2151: 2080: 1994: 1844: 1791: 1775: 1745: 1733: 1657: 1621: 1597: 1520: 1513: 1494: 1453: 1248: 1081: 1047: 1016: 973: 953:

the". For any wikipedian with 6 month of editing it would only take 10 minutes of lookin into

942: 919: 872: 769: 199: 189: 160: 3134: 3013: 2957: 2836: 2730: 2661: 2534: 2401: 2324: 1871: 1848: 1693: 957:

to nail them all. I do agree with "long screed of no consequence" judgement, though. It was

954: 758: 691: 555: 494: 332: 244: 2309:(Note I am still reading the article, these diatribes can be hard for me to read.) I think 2060:." At the time, the author seemed content with that decision. Knowledge is not monolithic. 3478: 3311: 2991: 2911: 2881: 2823: 2502: 2494: 2437: 2421: 2310: 1856: 1814: 1707: 1664: 1493:

question. That discussion has been going on for over a decade. It's not going to happen.--

1404: 895: 1230:, esp. in the part "dealing with incivility", we'd had World Peace 'in dem Augenblick'. 3165: 3110: 3095: 3083: 2998: 2978: 2414: 1808: 1275: 1195: 1182: 1133: 1063: 992: 831: 514: 336: 105: 94: 2651:, this is why Knowledge is bearing the brunt of these social issues. By and large, if 3543:

Thank you so much for all of your amazing work and your reflections in this article,

3525: 3368: 3338: 3303: 3273: 3052: 2831: 2621: 1998: 1972: 1604: 1463: 1439: 1333: 1311: 1289: 1215: 1137: 1106: 1027: 427: 234: 3283:

Yes, for just this reason I intend to push VE for my next gig as Campus Ambassador.

3495: 3218:

claimed that the removal of information about campus sexual violence was disruptive

3170: 3160: 2877: 2819: 2738: 2615: 2591: 2560: 2506: 2468: 2450: 2393: 2356: 2091: 2076: 1787: 1771: 1751: 1741: 1729: 1593: 1509: 1449: 1043: 868: 765: 239: 749:

Looks to me like crude opinion masquerading as serious research, written from an

35:

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the

3206: 3074: 3062: 2953: 2657: 2320: 2315: 1925:

Let me just pick one excerpt that highlights the type of problem in this screed:

1689: 754: 526: 490: 416: 121:

Dead parrots, live frogs, a symbolic kiss and what do we get? Enrique Iglesias!

3131:: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." 596: 489:

and resources, entertainment articles needing less ability and less resources.

3295: 2907: 2223:

I find your characterization of what “work” I "didn't do" baseless and wrong

1704: 1661: 1401: 458: 3079: 3056: 2974: 2903: 2888: 2802: 2013:

and only after clicking the link I found out it wasn't on wikipedia at all.

1725: 1675:

the guise of NPOV policy they designed themselves to suit their interests".

1645:

Deletion of category for Schools under investigation for Title IX violations

1270: 181: 165: 77: 941:

No, they aren't. The whole piece is just a long screed of no consequence.--

2936:

should even be a section entitled "misogyny" given the "bias" of the term.

3427:

These lists display terribly on a laptop. You should use something like

2769:"Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". 2177: 1870:

The article rightly pointed out that one of the critical comments was on

1542:

Stricken (sorry, jumping to conclusions base on incomplete information.)

2184:

It appears that Knowledge policy is no barrier to coverage of this issue

1607:" and pay attention to the point that a bias is not always malevolent. 1400:, so why can't we have campus sexual violence? Grognard Extraordinaire 2444:

is a complex, but interesting case. I just read the December 21, 2014

1553:

Please explain in plain words what you wanted to say with your irony.

653:. Have a feeling we'll be feeling more of that article in the future. 328: 1152:

policy; I've just reviewed it and find it decent. And the community

961:

where I failed to find suggestions how to fix the problem alleged.

2690:

For a glimpse of male hegemony in action, consider discussions at

2257:

face of the disruption you were causing, on the other hand, did.--

1532:

is not cast in stone. Errors may be corrected, bias may be fixed.

1199: 958: 533:

orders of magnitude more tolerant of intolerance than WP is today.

3299: 2417:

that editors should bear in mind that "male is not the default,"

66:

users were placed into categories based on their rates of editing

505:

and its coverage, and noting that I'm quite concerned about the

3367:

Why is FF at number 7 when it has more hist than Easy-E ?

1057:

Sorry for my sloppy writing: data analysis is to be based on a

157:

Wanted to say that I agree. It really is fantastic. Nice work,

3038: 2182:

And how many edits did you contribute to those articles? Zero.

1720: 3307: 3216:

Your statement (which contains my diff): "When a Wikipedian

2332:

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), and categorization

2186:- if you understand why it is there and how to work with it. 1874:, but while it linked to motherboard.vice.com for the quote 1653:

Category:Schools under investigation for Title IX violations

222:

Now on the FC page- I swapped 'em for that manky old print.

2353:

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Knowledge Engagement

2245:

civil and rational discussion. I leave you the last word.

1332:

We don't? I would never have started otherwise. :) --

867:

cheap shot at thoughtful essay on a very important issue.

789:, and shouldn't be used as the justification for deleting 603:

So, does somebody want to check the text in M.Talbot, who

376:

Politically controversial science; "Knowledge hates women"

3223: 3217: 2973:

justified and had nothing to do with any gender issue.

2872:"Yes, crying out against injustice must be impossible," 2531: 2475: 2472: 2418: 2410: 2099: 1783: 1565: 1153: 649:

I love the fact that the AfD for the article closed as

604: 583:

developed upon these), but without giving any credits.

426:

in May and has edited about a dozen times this month.

1489:

You seem to be saying the community should settle the

419:, who retired early this year, yet went on to write a 3294:

As a general note, citation generation tools such as

1519:

Riight. Because "reliable" is completely objective.--

3310:

need to be made orders of magnitude more prominent.

916:

Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology

2675:In an earlier discussion on this page, I made an 828:Student's False Sexual Assault Claims Go to Trial 2696:University Sexual Assault Investigations in Lead 2653:my edits on the United States' political systems 2933: 2767: 2762: 2735: 1928: 1407:Ping when replying 02:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2985:This editorial missed the forest for the trees 2952:Sorry if I misunderstood the article. :( 1710:Ping when replying 22:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1263:Category:People under investigation for murder 64: 8: 1269:, etc. either, for a whole host of reasons. 846:the so-called "encyclopedia anyone can edit" 679:Politically controversial not-really-science 3174: 3008:inappropriately use Knowledge as a soapbox 2180:which has been stable for most of a year. 327:Yeah, that's what's left of the confusion 278:is a four-act opera, not three. And two: 3086:(particularly concerned with distributed 2997:The sad thing is that there really are a 2910:; or, if a more general term is desired, 2178:Title IX#Litigation after Grove City case 597:stand corrected; Dot did cite its sources 2760:is clear from the examples it provides: 2528:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) 2340:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) 1819:, not a WMF one started by Sue Gardner. 1658:not the same as to build an encyclopedia 310:, re-arranged in the form of a melody". 2124:after I went around drumming up support 2058:Title IX sexual violence investigations 501:Without echoing the above points about 54:How Knowledge responds to breaking news 2864:" An encyclopedia where women and men 2801:The op-ed seems to take an issue with 2737:A defining characteristic is one that 1811:was a community initiative started by 1719:Thanks for using that graph about the 914:The piece was written for the journal 2727:defining characteristics of a subject 2526:Responding to Sarah's ping regarding 1807:One small point, I thought that the 1603:Please review the wikipedia article " 7: 3109:tend to be self-absorbed and simply 2902:As used in Thebrysepeake's article, 1715:Policies, WP speak and Women artists 1046:than of an informed opinion piece.-- 261: • 21:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 39:issue dated 2015-08-19. For general 1267:Category:Companies accused of fraud 991:in wikipedia. No such word. Found " 3337:Hilarious. I lost it at Torvald. 28: 3477:A belated happy birthday, Tony! 3239:) 17:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 2698:, where staunch hegemonists like 18:Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost 2048:. This, too, was subjected to a 3251:) 17:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 3071:consensus decision-making model 3567:) 18:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 3524:would be a good fit for you. 3439:) 02:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 2981:) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 2964:) 05:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2858:) 22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 2644:) 02:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 2541:) 05:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 2363:) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 2253:) 19:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2111:) 12:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2083:) 07:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2005:) 12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1778:) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1766:) 13:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1736:) 16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1600:) 21:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1561:) 22:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1527:) 21:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1516:) 21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1501:) 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1486:) 20:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1329:) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1318:) 19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1222:) 19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1210:) 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1144:) 19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1078:) 21:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1054:) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1038:) 21:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1023:) 20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1012:) 19:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 980:) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 969:) 18:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 949:) 17:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 938:) 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 926:) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 761:) 16:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 675:) 08:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 626:) 18:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 591:) 17:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 519:Knowledge:Don't feed the divas 497:) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 343:) 12:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 230:) 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1: 3555:) 01:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 3443:That looks exactly the same. 3375:) 05:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3364:) 16:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3318:) 04:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3291:) 00:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3280:) 17:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 2899:) 21:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 2748:define the subject as having. 2717:it is part of a multi-issue 2664:) 04:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 2513:) 23:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 2457:) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 2327:) 18:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 2265:) 19:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2158:) 14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2134:) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2126:" ... bangvote != vote. 1794:) 07:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 1748:) 17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1696:) 01:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1683:) 23:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1615:) 22:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1574:) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 1550:) 22:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1540:) 22:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1422:) 16:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1394:) 22:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1375:) 22:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1360:) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1340:) 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1255:) 17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1238:) 23:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1164:) 21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1117:) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 890:BTW, I particularly like the 875:) 10:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 838:) 02:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 772:) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 742:) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 615:) 18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 521:were kind-of sexist titles), 513:when I dared to suggest that 476:) 01:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 318:) 07:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 3539:17:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 3490:16:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3424:05:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3352:21:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3031:00:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 2793:19:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 2499:22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 2071:06:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1958:02:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC). 1918:02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC). 1894:20:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1835:19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1667:22:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1190:16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 863:16:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 659:03:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 641:22:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC). 450:19:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 441:16:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 415:prominent recent example is 410:16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 219:18:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 194:18:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 172:18:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 153:17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 100:19:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 84:18:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3458:09:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 3397:09:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3187:) 16:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 3152:05:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 2925:00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2649:there are not better venues 2608:02:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 2426:23:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 2388:22:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 2291:19:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2218:17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2201:And I missed the big one - 2198:16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2029:08:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 1986:02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1861:21:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1640:18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 1442:19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1303:19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1280:18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1004:, not occasional examples. 907:16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 802:16:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 709:19:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 573:19:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 360:05:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 299:05:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 243:had an occupational name.— 111:19:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3584: 3326:Straight Outta Connecticut 3092:culturally anthropological 1202:is a significant factor. 233:Never occurred to me that 3088:organizational ergonomics 3505:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3048:psychological projection 2754:category deletion debate 2692:WikiProject Universities 2588:WP:Neutral point of view 2349:Category:Facebook groups 2347:applies here. I created 1946:All the best: 1906:All the best: 1491:deletionism-inclusionism 1380:category:Sexual violence 3159:was her handle and the 2797:Scientism and the other 2174:Office for Civil Rights 2145:Why should Wikipedians 2054:Office for Civil Rights 1971:readers might not be. 1084:, if I understand what 764:Which part(s) and why? 607:by Dr Blofeld as well? 45:Knowledge talk:Signpost 3405:Straight Outta Compton 2938: 2771: 2766: 2750: 1933: 1688:The Great News! :D --- 1412:Campus sexual violence 1132:The fix proposed was " 1028:avoid personal attacks 822: 578:"Bogus wikipedia page" 350:Ser Amantio di Nicolao 289:Ser Amantio di Nicolao 286:), I must disagree. -- 68: 3429:Template:Episode list 2711:University of Chicago 2203:Campus sexual assault 1384:Campus sexual assault 1154:does not stop at that 1059:representative sample 955:wikipedians' contribs 818: 517:and its longer title 388:Knowledge hates women 3407:while reading this! 3067:cognitive dissonance 2968:Controversy in leads 2640:See what I have done 2406:Mattress Performance 1853:The Vintage Feminist 1482:See what I have done 525:without challenging 274:Two nitpicks. One: 3466:Seeing is believing 3403:I was listening to 3257:Technology report: 1701:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 1398:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1096:-- both themselves 663:Percentage of women 312:Xanthomelanoussprog 308:Harrison Birtwistle 224:Xanthomelanoussprog 3308:Google Books citer 3259:Tech news in brief 2715:Occidental College 2420:but was reverted. 2345:Knowledge:Defining 2170:Planned Parenthood 1866:Off wiki criticism 356:Lo dicono a Signa. 295:Lo dicono a Signa. 119:Featured content: 3538: 3382:I goofed. Fixed. 3351: 3193:Correction needed 3188: 3179:comment added by 3175:— Preceding 2707:Editing Infoboxes 2685:assume good faith 2643: 2607: 2606: 2498: 2425: 1995:cultural hegemony 1985: 1959: 1919: 1860: 1841:WereSpielChequers 1622:heteronormativity 1485: 1382:and here you go: 1302: 1279: 1082:User:Anders_Feder 642: 511:see what happened 472: 440: 73:JSutherland (WMF) 3575: 3561:Peregrine Fisher 3535: 3530: 3528: 3515: 3486: 3455: 3448: 3433:Peregrine Fisher 3415: 3394: 3387: 3348: 3343: 3341: 3324:Traffic report: 3151: 3030: 2924: 2852:Toter Alter Mann 2843:once and for all 2837:Cyborg Manifesto 2792: 2739:reliable sources 2704: 2641: 2637: 2634: 2626: 2619: 2596: 2595: 2576:General comments 2497: 2424: 2383: 2378: 2290: 2274: 2217: 2197: 2167: 2070: 2027: 2023: 2018: 1982: 1977: 1975: 1957: 1917: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1872:Knowledge Review 1859: 1833: 1829: 1824: 1818: 1639: 1636: 1630: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1468: 1299: 1294: 1292: 1273: 1090:User:Bryce_Peake 1086:User:Staszek_Lem 903: 861: 854: 798: 718:(90,803 bytes · 708: 657: 640: 572: 470: 448: 437: 432: 430: 408: 378:(11,793 bytes · 351: 290: 259: 253: 247: 209: 193: 185: 170: 163: 143: 82: 75: 43:discussion, see 3583: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3570: 3559:Pretty cool! - 3533: 3526: 3509: 3489: 3484: 3475: 3468:(1,690 bytes · 3453: 3446: 3423: 3409: 3392: 3385: 3358:Maury Markowitz 3346: 3339: 3335: 3328:(1,842 bytes · 3268: 3261:(1,242 bytes · 3195: 3149: 3132: 3028: 3011: 2992:false dichotomy 2987: 2970: 2958:at your service 2932: 2915: 2799: 2783: 2699: 2673: 2639: 2630: 2622: 2613: 2584:WP:Undue weight 2578: 2379: 2374: 2334: 2306: 2281: 2268: 2208: 2188: 2161: 2061: 2050:deletion debate 2042: 2025: 2021: 2016: 1980: 1973: 1960: 1920: 1899:discriminatory. 1890: 1886: 1881: 1868: 1831: 1827: 1822: 1812: 1805: 1717: 1647: 1634: 1628: 1626: 1481: 1472: 1464: 1436:game the system 1352:and pessimism. 1297: 1290: 906: 901: 857: 850: 794: 736:Maury Markowitz 730: 725: 706: 689: 681: 665: 655: 643: 580: 570: 553: 446: 435: 428: 406: 390: 385: 359: 349: 298: 288: 257: 251: 245: 217: 207: 187: 178:Bobamnertiopsis 175: 166: 158: 151: 141: 130: 123:(3,889 bytes · 78: 70: 63: 56:(3,918 bytes · 33: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3581: 3579: 3557: 3556: 3549:Michael Barera 3507: 3506: 3503: 3481: 3474: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3417: 3410:Eat me, I'm a 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3377: 3376: 3365: 3334: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3292: 3281: 3267: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3228: 3227: 3221: 3214: 3194: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3181:172.58.137.140 3173:(Knowledge). 3166:Jerry Springer 3155: 3154: 3147: 3129:Hanlon's razor 3122: 3117: 3100:communications 3096:affinity group 3045: 3026: 3001:problem and a 2986: 2983: 2969: 2966: 2931: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2900: 2798: 2795: 2672: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2610: 2609: 2577: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2474:A male editor 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2428: 2427: 2390: 2389: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2305: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2266: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2199: 2159: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2041: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 1988: 1987: 1962: 1961: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1921: 1904: 1900: 1867: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1804: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1749: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1697: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1646: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1629:Chris Troutman 1618: 1617: 1616: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1551: 1458: 1457: 1444: 1443: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1395: 1376: 1361: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1305: 1304: 1282: 1281: 1257: 1256: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1134:culture change 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1064:primary source 993:metapragmatics 989:meta-pragmatic 911: 910: 909: 908: 898: 885: 884: 879: 878: 877: 876: 842: 841: 840: 839: 816: 815: 814: 811:John Broughton 804: 803: 796:John Broughton 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 744: 743: 729: 726: 724: 711: 704: 680: 677: 664: 661: 647: 646: 645: 644: 616: 579: 576: 575: 574: 568: 549: 548: 547: 544: 538: 534: 524: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 464:Magog the Ogre 455:social justice 389: 386: 384: 374:In the media: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 353: 320: 319: 301: 300: 292: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 215: 149: 129: 116: 115: 114: 113: 112: 90: 62: 49: 32: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3580: 3571: 3568: 3566: 3562: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3536: 3529: 3523: 3520: 3513: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3487: 3480: 3473: 3471: 3467: 3462: 3457: 3456: 3451: 3449: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3425: 3421: 3416: 3413: 3406: 3396: 3395: 3390: 3388: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3342: 3333: 3331: 3327: 3322: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3290: 3286: 3285:Jim.henderson 3282: 3279: 3275: 3270: 3269: 3266: 3264: 3260: 3255: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3238: 3234: 3225: 3222: 3219: 3215: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3200: 3192: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3172: 3167: 3162: 3157: 3156: 3153: 3145: 3142: 3139: 3137: 3130: 3126: 3120: 3115: 3112: 3107: 3103: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3084:microeconomic 3081: 3076: 3075:enthnographic 3072: 3068: 3064: 3061:This kind of 3058: 3054: 3053:Conservapedia 3049: 3043: 3041: 3040: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3024: 3021: 3018: 3016: 3009: 3004: 3000: 2995: 2993: 2984: 2982: 2980: 2976: 2967: 2965: 2963: 2962:my good deeds 2959: 2955: 2954:Andrea Carter 2950: 2946: 2942: 2937: 2930:Some comments 2929: 2922: 2918: 2917:RockMagnetist 2913: 2909: 2908:Wikilawyering 2905: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2883: 2879: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2857: 2853: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2833: 2832:Donna Haraway 2828: 2825: 2821: 2816: 2813: 2807: 2804: 2796: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2785:RockMagnetist 2779: 2776: 2770: 2765: 2761: 2759: 2755: 2749: 2747: 2743: 2740: 2734: 2732: 2728: 2722: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2703: 2697: 2693: 2688: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2670: 2663: 2659: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2642: 2635: 2633: 2627: 2625: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2604: 2600: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2566: 2562: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2543: 2542: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2477: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2456: 2452: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2423: 2419: 2416: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2392: 2391: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2377: 2371: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2331: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2288: 2284: 2283:RockMagnetist 2278: 2272: 2271:Thebrycepeake 2267: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2254: 2252: 2248: 2247:Thebrycepeake 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2226: 2225:RockMagnetist 2222: 2215: 2211: 2210:RockMagnetist 2207: 2204: 2200: 2195: 2191: 2190:RockMagnetist 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2165: 2164:Thebrycepeake 2160: 2157: 2153: 2148: 2144: 2133: 2129: 2128:75.108.94.227 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2110: 2106: 2105:Thebrycepeake 2101: 2097: 2096:RockMagnetist 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2063:RockMagnetist 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2040:Cherrypicking 2039: 2028: 2024: 2019: 2012: 2007: 2006: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1983: 1976: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1934: 1932: 1924: 1923: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1893: 1889: 1884: 1877: 1873: 1865: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1834: 1830: 1825: 1816: 1810: 1802: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1780: 1779: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1767: 1765: 1761: 1760:Thebrycepeake 1757: 1753: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1722: 1714: 1709: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1678: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1666: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1637: 1631: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1605:systemic bias 1602: 1601: 1599: 1595: 1590: 1586: 1573: 1569: 1568:75.108.94.227 1566: 1563: 1562: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1539: 1535: 1529: 1528: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1484: 1477: 1475: 1469: 1467: 1460: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1350: 1346: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1300: 1293: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1277: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1221: 1217: 1212: 1211: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1192: 1191: 1189: 1186: 1185: 1179: 1176: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1116: 1112: 1111:75.108.94.227 1108: 1104: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1079: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1056: 1055: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1040: 1039: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1011: 1007: 1003: 998: 994: 990: 986: 985:metapragmatic 982: 981: 979: 975: 971: 970: 968: 964: 960: 956: 951: 950: 948: 944: 940: 939: 937: 933: 928: 927: 925: 921: 917: 913: 912: 904: 897: 893: 889: 888: 887: 886: 881: 880: 874: 870: 865: 864: 862: 860: 855: 853: 847: 844: 843: 837: 833: 829: 824: 823: 821: 817: 812: 808: 807: 806: 805: 801: 797: 792: 788: 784: 780: 779: 771: 767: 763: 762: 760: 756: 752: 748: 747: 746: 745: 741: 737: 732: 731: 727: 723: 721: 717: 710: 702: 699: 696: 694: 685: 678: 676: 674: 670: 669:Chiswick Chap 662: 660: 658: 652: 638: 637: 633: 628: 627: 625: 621: 617: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 593: 592: 590: 586: 577: 566: 563: 560: 558: 550: 542: 539: 535: 531: 530: 528: 522: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 499: 498: 496: 492: 487: 475: 469: 465: 460: 456: 452: 451: 449: 443: 442: 438: 431: 425: 423: 418: 413: 412: 411: 409: 403: 398: 394: 387: 383: 381: 377: 372: 358: 357: 352: 345: 344: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 304: 303: 302: 297: 296: 291: 285: 281: 277: 273: 272: 260: 258:contributions 254: 248: 242: 241: 236: 235:Harry Shearer 232: 231: 229: 225: 221: 220: 218: 213: 210: 206: 201: 196: 195: 192: 191: 183: 179: 174: 173: 171: 169: 162: 156: 155: 154: 152: 147: 144: 140: 135: 128: 126: 122: 117: 110: 108: 102: 101: 99: 97: 91: 87: 86: 85: 83: 81: 74: 67: 61: 59: 55: 50: 48: 46: 42: 38: 30: 23: 19: 3569: 3558: 3545:TonyTheTiger 3512:TonyTheTiger 3508: 3476: 3464:Travelogue: 3463: 3444: 3426: 3411: 3402: 3383: 3336: 3323: 3256: 3245:BullRangifer 3233:BullRangifer 3229: 3196: 3171:Sausage Fest 3161:Sausage Fest 3135: 3124: 3105: 3104: 3099: 3080:sociological 3060: 3037: 3014: 3003:WP:GENDERGAP 2996: 2988: 2971: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2934: 2912:pettifogging 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2846: 2842: 2835: 2829: 2817: 2811: 2808: 2800: 2780: 2774: 2772: 2768: 2763: 2751: 2746:consistently 2745: 2741: 2736: 2723: 2702:SarahStierch 2689: 2676: 2674: 2648: 2631: 2623: 2476:told her off 2445: 2441: 2434:Sonicyouth86 2405: 2397: 2380: 2375: 2338: 2335: 2276: 2259:Anders Feder 2205: 2185: 2181: 2152:Anders Feder 2146: 2043: 2014: 1968: 1947: 1929: 1907: 1879: 1869: 1855:and others. 1845:Carolmooredc 1820: 1806: 1718: 1671: 1588: 1530: 1521:Anders Feder 1506:WP:SECONDARY 1495:Anders Feder 1473: 1465: 1364: 1348: 1249:Battleofalma 1183: 1177: 1102: 1097: 1068:waving hands 1067: 1058: 1048:Anders Feder 1017:Anders Feder 1001: 996: 974:Anders Feder 943:Anders Feder 920:Anders Feder 915: 891: 858: 851: 845: 819: 790: 786: 783:WP:RECENTISM 781:I note that 753:position. - 750: 713: 692: 686: 682: 666: 650: 648: 630: 600: 581: 556: 507:WP:GENDERGAP 502: 485: 483: 421: 402:Cara Ellison 399: 397:never made. 395: 391: 373: 355: 294: 283: 279: 275: 240:The Simpsons 238: 208:Amnertiopsis 204: 200:Adam Cuerden 190:Adam Cuerden 188: 167: 161:Adam Cuerden 142:Amnertiopsis 138: 133: 131: 118: 106: 95: 79: 69: 65: 51: 40: 36: 34: 3136:SMcCandlish 3063:doublethink 3015:SMcCandlish 2893:Staszek Lem 2758:WP:DEFINING 2729:. To quote 2719:Controversy 2713:, while in 2535:BoboMeowCat 2402:BoboMeowCat 1937:dominance". 1931:domination. 1849:BoboMeowCat 1677:Staszek Lem 1609:Staszek Lem 1555:Staszek Lem 1544:Staszek Lem 1534:Staszek Lem 1416:Staszek Lem 1414:" we have. 1388:Staszek Lem 1369:Staszek Lem 1354:Staszek Lem 1323:Staszek Lem 1232:Staszek Lem 1228:WP:CIVILITY 1204:Staszek Lem 1188:Talk to me! 1158:Staszek Lem 1150:WP:CIVILITY 1072:Staszek Lem 1044:Sokal paper 1032:Staszek Lem 1006:Staszek Lem 963:Staszek Lem 932:Staszek Lem 693:SMcCandlish 620:Staszek Lem 609:Staszek Lem 585:Staszek Lem 557:SMcCandlish 486:immediately 246:Vchimpanzee 3479:Smallbones 3312:FourViolas 2885:writings." 2812:everyone's 2677:ad hominem 2632:Talk to me 2277:ad hominem 1953:Farmbrough 1913:Farmbrough 1815:SlimVirgin 1474:Talk to me 896:Smallbones 656:GamerPro64 651:trainwreck 636:Farmbrough 459:groupthink 447:GamerPro64 407:GamerPro64 3485:smalltalk 3121:privilege 3057:Metapedia 2904:scientism 2889:tu quoque 2803:scientism 2731:WP:CATDEF 2721:section. 2370:consensus 1726:rush week 1276:reactions 1184:Winner 42 902:smalltalk 832:FeralOink 605:was cited 337:Hafspajen 280:Don Carlo 164:! – 3527:Gamaliel 3369:Hawkeye7 3340:Gamaliel 3304:Apoc2400 3274:Djembayz 3177:unsigned 2882:Bourdieu 2862:WHA...? 2824:Bourdieu 2742:commonly 2681:civility 2624:3family6 2603:contribs 2446:NY Times 2442:Mattress 2398:Mattress 2311:WP:UNDUE 2026:Chequers 1999:Djembayz 1974:Gamaliel 1969:Signpost 1891:Chequers 1832:Chequers 1564:Perhaps. 1466:3family6 1334:Djembayz 1312:Djembayz 1291:Gamaliel 1216:Djembayz 1138:Djembayz 1107:WP:OWNed 1094:trifecta 892:academic 791:anything 751:a priori 728:Untitled 429:Gamaliel 422:Signpost 255: • 249: • 41:Signpost 37:Signpost 31:Comments 20:‎ | 3522:feature 3519:Gallery 3447:Serendi 3420:discuss 3386:Serendi 3300:Yadkard 3224:My diff 3111:WP:DGAF 3090:), not 2999:WP:BIAS 2960:| 2866:finally 2847:finally 2775:subject 2752:In the 2671:Uncivil 2636:| 2616:Davidwr 2592:davidwr 2561:Mattnad 2507:Wbm1058 2469:Wbm1058 2451:Wbm1058 2415:WP:TALK 2394:Wbm1058 2357:Wbm1058 1809:WP:GGTF 1784:deleted 1594:kosboot 1510:EllenCT 1478:| 1196:WP:DGAF 1103:against 1098:clearly 869:Circéus 809:Hello, 766:EllenCT 714:Op-ed: 515:WP:DIVA 503:Cracked 331:versus 216:ChatMe! 150:ChatMe! 3125:stupid 2878:Latour 2830:After 2820:Latour 2658:Int21h 2396:, the 2386:(talk) 2321:Int21h 1951: 1911: 1708:(talk) 1690:Zemant 1672:per se 1410:Huh? " 1405:(talk) 997:really 785:is an 755:Sitush 634: 527:Morwen 491:Int21h 417:TParis 333:Otello 329:Otello 276:Otello 134:Otello 52:Blog: 22:Single 3296:Dalba 3199:Bryce 3044:group 2870:.... 2503:Sarah 2495:Sarah 2479:room. 2438:Sarah 2422:Sarah 2376:Sonic 2316:PACER 2304:UNDUE 2150:it.-- 2022:Spiel 1887:Spiel 1857:Sarah 1828:Spiel 1705:Chess 1662:Pudeo 1402:Chess 1265:, or 1200:tl;dr 1002:stats 959:tl;dr 852:Green 793:. -- 787:essay 424:op-ed 16:< 3565:talk 3553:talk 3534:talk 3502:) 16 3500:talk 3496:Jane 3437:talk 3431:. - 3414:bean 3373:talk 3362:talk 3347:talk 3316:talk 3289:talk 3278:talk 3249:talk 3237:talk 3211:here 3209:and 3207:here 3185:talk 3116:hate 3082:and 3065:and 3055:and 2979:talk 2975:Gigs 2921:talk 2897:talk 2880:and 2874:... 2856:talk 2822:and 2789:talk 2744:and 2662:talk 2647:No, 2599:talk 2586:and 2565:talk 2539:talk 2511:talk 2455:talk 2436:and 2361:talk 2325:talk 2287:talk 2263:talk 2251:talk 2214:talk 2194:talk 2156:talk 2132:talk 2109:talk 2094:and 2092:Jane 2081:talk 2077:Jane 2067:talk 2017:Ϣere 2003:talk 1981:talk 1949:Rich 1909:Rich 1903:OCR. 1882:Ϣere 1823:Ϣere 1803:GGTF 1792:talk 1788:Jane 1776:talk 1772:Jane 1764:talk 1752:Jane 1746:talk 1742:Jane 1734:talk 1730:Jane 1694:talk 1681:talk 1635:talk 1613:talk 1598:talk 1572:talk 1559:talk 1548:talk 1538:talk 1525:talk 1514:talk 1499:talk 1454:talk 1450:Jane 1440:Nemo 1420:talk 1392:talk 1373:talk 1363:re: 1358:talk 1347:re: 1338:talk 1327:talk 1316:talk 1298:talk 1271:shoy 1253:talk 1236:talk 1220:talk 1208:talk 1178:Yawn 1162:talk 1142:talk 1115:talk 1076:talk 1052:talk 1042:the 1036:talk 1021:talk 1010:talk 978:talk 967:talk 947:talk 936:talk 924:talk 873:talk 836:talk 800:(♫♫) 770:talk 759:talk 740:talk 673:talk 632:Rich 624:talk 613:talk 589:talk 495:talk 436:talk 341:talk 316:talk 284:that 252:talk 228:talk 182:Czar 180:and 168:czar 132:The 80:czar 3454:ous 3412:red 3393:ous 3306:'s 3302:or 3298:'s 3197:Hi 3150:ⱷ≼ 3146:≽ⱷ҅ 3039:sic 3029:ⱷ≼ 3025:≽ⱷ҅ 2834:'s 2733:, 2694:on 2601:)/( 2590:. 2533:.-- 2147:not 2090:Hi 1839:Hi 1721:RKD 1656:is 1589:any 987:or 830:.-- 707:ⱷ≼ 703:≽ⱷ҅ 571:ⱷ≼ 567:≽ⱷ҅ 523:and 237:of 205:Bob 139:Bob 107:fox 96:fox 3470:💬 3330:💬 3263:💬 3133:— 3012:— 2914:. 1851:, 1847:, 1660:. 720:💬 690:— 599:: 595:I 554:— 543:is 471:• 380:💬 347:-- 335:. 202:! 125:💬 58:💬 47:. 3563:( 3551:( 3537:) 3531:( 3514:: 3510:@ 3498:( 3488:) 3482:( 3472:) 3435:( 3422:) 3418:( 3371:( 3360:( 3350:) 3344:( 3332:) 3314:( 3287:( 3276:( 3265:) 3247:( 3235:( 3213:. 3183:( 3148:ᴥ 3144:¢ 3141:☏ 3138:☺ 3027:ᴥ 3023:¢ 3020:☏ 3017:☺ 2977:( 2956:( 2923:) 2919:( 2895:( 2854:( 2791:) 2787:( 2700:@ 2660:( 2628:( 2618:: 2614:@ 2605:) 2597:( 2594:/ 2567:) 2563:( 2537:( 2509:( 2453:( 2381:Y 2359:( 2323:( 2289:) 2285:( 2273:: 2269:@ 2261:( 2249:( 2216:) 2212:( 2196:) 2192:( 2166:: 2162:@ 2154:( 2130:( 2122:" 2107:( 2079:( 2069:) 2065:( 2001:( 1984:) 1978:( 1956:, 1916:, 1817:: 1813:@ 1790:( 1774:( 1762:( 1744:( 1732:( 1692:( 1679:( 1665:' 1638:) 1632:( 1611:( 1596:( 1570:( 1557:( 1546:( 1536:( 1523:( 1512:( 1497:( 1470:( 1456:) 1452:( 1418:( 1390:( 1371:( 1356:( 1336:( 1325:( 1314:( 1301:) 1295:( 1278:) 1274:( 1251:( 1234:( 1218:( 1206:( 1160:( 1140:( 1113:( 1074:( 1050:( 1034:( 1019:( 1008:( 976:( 965:( 945:( 934:( 922:( 905:) 899:( 871:( 859:C 834:( 768:( 757:( 738:( 722:) 705:ᴥ 701:¢ 698:☏ 695:☺ 671:( 639:, 622:( 611:( 587:( 569:ᴥ 565:¢ 562:☏ 559:☺ 509:( 493:( 474:c 468:t 466:( 439:) 433:( 382:) 339:( 314:( 226:( 212:∴ 184:: 176:@ 159:@ 146:∴ 127:) 109:j 98:j 71:@ 60:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Knowledge Signpost/Single/2015-08-19 - Knowledge

Index