Wikipedia, Patriarchy, Proof and Pudding

Meta Feminist Dyke of the Old School welcomes all.
No comment will be censored.
Bring it on.

My Photo
Location: WE Are EVERYWHERE, U.S. Virgin Islands

Music is my Medicine. Thinking is my Sport. Nature is my Faith.

Monday, November 27, 2006

A Band Of Brothers

From the Merrriam-Webster online dictionary
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin cohort-, cohors -- more at court
1 a : one of 10 divisions of an ancient Roman legion
b : a group of warriors or soldiers
c : band, group
d : a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study

Rintrah, in his second comment to The Sorry Mr. Happy, seems disturbed that Y referred to him as a cohort of SecondSight. Y would not like to talk to or be associated with SecondSite, either, after reading his user page on wikipedia. Read it for yourself, if you want, but it looks to me like he spends a great deal of time and energy studying the psychology of personality in order to improve his skills as a "pick-up artist" in the "seduction community".

As far as Y can tell, SecondSight is responsible for deleting my contributions. Here is another aspect typical of patriachal organizations: only those in the know are able to effectively work the system. Navigating wikipedia is like trying to work your way around an underground community of moles. On the surface, anyone can see the evidence of their labors. But it's so hard to tell where it all comes from - it's time consuming, too.

Look at this beauty, that Y was able to dig up:

The origins of bias
The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, (9) is from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor.
You can read this whole page, including the self-references, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

Oh, by the way, number (10) is a euphemism for "belongs to one of the upper echelons in the class hierarchy". Euphemism: yet another weapon used by the soldiers of patriarchy.


Anonymous Rintrah said...

I don't think I'll read Dworkin; for her views aren't... well... measured.

So "gfuck" is a euphemism for "go fuck yourself". Interesting, but I think I'll just write, "go fuck yourself." if need be.

I am glad you defined cohort (you saved me time typing in 'cohort' at or opening one of my own dictionaries,) but I am still waiting for you to show me he is my cohort. (That is what you are going to do, right?) You say I am disturbed, but rather I am still puzzled.

You seem quite upset your contributions were deleted. You have dedicated a lot of space and time to whining about it, but have you bothered actually showing they are worthwhile? Are you eventually going to get to that point?

Since you want me to take all your comments as hyperbole, I am happy to oblige. It is a requirement of the principle of charity.

It is interesting to note that you quote "Countering systemic bias" because its aim is exactly its title. You assume that because a majority of wikipedia editors are white, male, etc. (according to that page), wikipedia must be patriarchal. Do you take begging the question to be some infallible device? Do you also expect that when you walk the city streets, nine out of ten people you bump into are 'the average voter'?

You are ascribing so much power to me by calling me patriarchal, yet I have the same power as you. I press the edit button, change some of the text, then press "Save Page."

I have many problems with wikipedia. I suppose eventually you will actually discover a valid criticism of it (after many self-indulgent posts.)

You seem to take what you don't like, call it 'patriarchal', then impute a perceived fault of the thing you don't like to the 'patriarchy'. You were right to criticise your teacher in your sociology class, but your methodology is hardly 'scholarship' either. Maybe I too should start my own blog and write vitriolic rants, claiming 'reality' is my source. You say a patriarchal tool is 'equivocation', but you struggle to actually get to the point.

Monday, November 27, 2006  
Anonymous Rintrah said...

I have provided all the information you need to be 'in the know' on your talkpage. You now have the means to easily find out how to do things.

Here is the evidence you need that Secondsight reverted your changes:

The history page allows users to find out who posted what content (I can probably find out who posted a particular sentence in about 5 minutes.) 'Sauces' actually reveal where content comes from, hence their importance. Since wikipedia users are not assumed to be revered experts on the subjects they write about in each article, sources and verifiability are demanded by policy. If articles are restricted to objective content, contributors can more easily determine what is right and wrong; if opinions are stated, however, disputes arise as to whose opinions are correct.

Does this answer your criticisms, or are you leading somewhere I have no idea about in your blog entries?

By the way, I could have posted all the information you have now on your talk page earlier had you only asked.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006  
Blogger Lesbesquet said...

Rintrah,you do make good on your promise to humor me.

Thanks for the info. You, a relative insider, don't dare to contribute to the patriarchy page. As for me, once burned = twice warned.

What Y am upset about is that the crap on the page remains. More about that later.

Y don't have any problem saying go fuck yourself, fuck you, fuck it, fucking rediculous, or anything of the kind. It was just funny to me that my randomly chosen word verification was "gfuck". Guess a bunch of chimps typing on infinitely would eventually write a novel. Y dont have a souse or sauce for that, Y just heard about it a few times.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006  
Anonymous Rintrah said...

I get it: the word verification randomly came up with 'gfuck.'

You're right: I did make good on my promise to humour you. But I'm afraid I have given you all the information you need-reasons for putting that message on your page, reasons why your changes were reverted, and policy and help pages-, and there isn't any further I can take this, so I probably won't be humouring you much more.

As far as I know, the idea about hordes of monkeys on typewriters writing books comes from the physicist Arthur Eddington.

I still don't see why you say I have so much power. Do you think I can put these sentences into wikipedia articles at will: "George Bush is an idiot." on George Bush, or "MTV plays music to braindead youth." on MTV?

If you read everything I have provided on your page, you will know more about policies and rules than I. One of them is that nearly everything is settled by discussion, If you use wikipedia for more than a year, you will probably find out as much as I know. My 'relative insider' status isn't special.

I could contribute to the Patriarchy page, but my concerns about accuracy and encyclopedic standards would prevent me from adding anything unless I found it in a reliable source. I would have to go to a library and read through books describing the 'patriarchy', which I really could not be bothered doing. Or I would have to look through academic papers, which does not excite me either.

I did successfully change the Patriarchy page once. I deleted content from Pro-feminism and Patriarchy. I also deleted all but one sentence from Gender studies, but other editors didn't like seeing this removed so one editor restored the content. I was trying to rid the article of pretensious quotes, which made up for lack of clear explanation, but to no avail. Now if I was eager to have it removed, I could, but it is not worth the effort and time.

Why wikipedia is all-important for publishing your opinions, I cannot work out. If improving the Patriarchy page is very important to you, you could find a way, but it would involve researching the subject rather than asserting things you take to be self-evident.

I know you are saying men are nerds (in Self Evident), but in reality, nerddom doesn't discriminate against sex.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home