[deleted]
OP account joined 4 days ago and only posts this link. Username reveals bias. I’ll think I’ll skip reading this one.
[deleted]
Submitted 3 months ago by wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
HauntedBucket@lemm.ee 3 months ago
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
That’s a lot of words to be summed up as “conservatives crying about not being allowed to lie with impunity and pretend that those lies are somehow legitimate journalism and should be allowed to be considered as a reliable source.”
Like fuck me, it’s a neverending quest to be the fucking victims of their own ineptitude and chicanery yet blame it on everyone else.
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Although Wikipedia is occasionally prone to group-think, and the editing process is truly Byzantine, it is also one of the most indispensable projects on the internet. this diatribe reads a little like: Why are you so obsessed with me?
wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world 3 months ago
WorkIsSlow@lemmy.world 3 months ago
After reading I now appreciate David Gerard’s dedication.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 months ago
Gerard will remove Unreliable Sources en masse with terse explanations and with little consideration for actual content, digging in with elaborate justification when pressed.
Emphasis mine. Is the author really complaining that Gerard provides little explanation but also saying they provide a lot of explanation when asked for explanation? I don’t see the problem.
wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world 3 months ago
To everyone who’re dissing the Substack article here, at least the much-derided “Reddit hivemind” has more sense than ya’ll.
I’ll just leave this here without comments.
As someone who had this article randomly recommended to me and followed a google search of Gerrard here, I have to say I’m disappointed and mildly concerned by the tone of people’s criticisms of the article. It reads like people who feel compelled to unquestioningly defend a colleague rather than evaluate the claims. Comments like “that is precisely how an encyclopaedia is supposed to work”, “Somebody’s butthurt their edit got reverted by this guy”, ““I am a republican and am angry that this guy isn’t” lmao” do not engender confidence in the community. People arguing against Gerrard also seem fixated on fighting the culture war and disparaging Gerrard’s character rather than elucidating the specific wrongdoings.
The article is not well structured. The author meanders between a specific accusation(continuous and malicious violation of a policy), a psychoanalyzing biography, public curiosity, criticism of various sources/policies, and thinly veiled personal animosity. Worse, it leads with the personal animosity and asks us to take much of the narrative connecting the individual references on faith.
However, Gerard’s consistent and seemingly unrepentant use of his authority to further personal feuds is very upsetting to hear. That is not behavior I want to be tolerated from major Wikipedia editors, and it makes me doubt the general credibility of articles I read. This form of abuse of power speaks to a general personality flaw that I find unlikely to be limited to one incident, especially given the quote of him apparently crowing over his manipulation. If the treasurer of an organization embezzles money from one bank account, we don’t just remove them from that one account; we would remove them from any role of financial authority.
Gerard’s extensive use of a secondary source he contributed to, to justify his edits also seems very bad. However, the article is unclear if it violates a Wikipedia rule.
The article paints a fantastic picture of Gerard’s edit history as obsessive and calculating. I find the argument plausible but unconvincing, it is functionally a ‘just so’ story that relies on the above actions to characterize Gerard as the type of person who could act this way. There are people, especially ultra online people, who are obsessive and calculating, people who will dedicate immense time to carefully employ social manipulation and institutional power to advance a narrative over years and years. I sincerely wish the article had spent more time establishing the motive, context, and specific tactics it accuses Gerard of. Instead, it makes an assertion and links to diffs. I understand the author that these are self-evident, but they are not. Showing manipulation on the scale alleged requires step-by-step walk through the interaction. Otherwise, it is too easy to cast innocuous behavior as malicious.
In addition, this section is harmed by being interwoven with tangentially related social commentary and personal disgust.
The alleged behavior is upsetting. However, I don’t think the article makes a convincing case for it. It is also the sort of bad behavior I expect in any large organization.
The article makes the mistake many accusations make by being more of a list of the author’s grievances than advancing a specific narrative of wrongdoing. However, at least the first two accusations seem well-founded, and a reflective community should critically engage with them rather than reflexively closing ranks against criticism.
I should disclose I occasionally read Scott Alexander’s blog, although I think he is overly conspiratorial about the NYT article, also I think yud is silly. I don’t believe I feel any significant emotionality in Gerard’s fight with rationalists.
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I thought this article would have a substantive critique but it doesn’t. Quilette is absolutely not a reliable source. If you’re mad Wikipedia doesn’t trust a magazine that puts a faux intellectual veneer on early 1900’s race science, that’s a you problem, my good bitch, not Wikipedia’s. And the Daily Mail is so unreliable, I don’t trust it for rumors about soccer transfers and celebrities are french kissing in Ibiza. It’s a tabloid, not a reliable source.
For the record, Wikipedia doesn’t have an agenda against right wing sources. There’s plenty on their reliable sources list. They have an agenda against quackery and pseudoscience.
billiam0202@lemmy.world 3 months ago
So you admit they do have a bias against right-wing sources!