Feminism

[Ben X]

It's an interesting question.  Do you have full right to privacy when you choose to make Wikipedia edits to a high profile article that is currently controversial?  This isn't like commenting on Reddit, or posting on your own Tumblr.  This is essentially writing what will be one of the most common narratives many people will encounter, on one of the most popular sites on the world, which many people (erroneously) trust.  Is it unreasonable to want to know who is writing articles for Wikipedia?  Particularly if the pattern looks like the people most dedicated to controlling the article are not who they claim to be and clearly demonstrate both through the talk pages and other sources that they do not have any interest in a neutral, factual narrative.

 

I'll start off - yes, you do. It's Wikipedia's decision whether/to what extent to maintain the privacy of their contributors and the reader's decision whether to trust the site in light of that fact. If you contribute to/edit Wikipedia on the understanding that you will have privacy, then you should get to keep that privacy and not be doxxed. Unfortunately, that rule has to stand for people who "do not have any interest in a neutral, factual narrative", but that's up to Wikipedia to sort out, not for others to solve by doxxing.

 

In other words: if you don't like a building, then just avoid entering it; don't set it on fire.

[JonCole]

While I generally subscribe to the idea that you shouldn't sink to the level of your enemies, but it's literally impossible to go to their level no matter how much doxxing goes on by the good guys at this point. I mean, the 4Chan guys' "defense" for posting Anita's home address is basically "we were able to find it and we didn't need to hack anything!" which is essentially saying that a normal, human expectation for privacy just doesn't apply here.

 

I dunno, at this point I'm very morally compromised on this issue. I really think that this scum deserves no quarter, so they deserve whatever comes their way. It's hard for me to feel anything but anger when it comes to this.

[Mangela Lansbury]

It's an interesting question.  Do you have full right to privacy when you choose to make Wikipedia edits to a high profile article that is currently controversial?  This isn't like commenting on Reddit, or posting on your own Tumblr.  This is essentially writing what will be one of the most common narratives many people will encounter, on one of the most popular sites on the world, which many people (erroneously) trust.  Is it unreasonable to want to know who is writing articles for Wikipedia?  Particularly if the pattern looks like the people most dedicated to controlling the article are not who they claim to be and clearly demonstrate both through the talk pages and other sources that they do not have any interest in a neutral, factual narrative.

 

Mostly, I think it's wrong to try to identify people who are making edits unless they bring their identity into it. Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, says a lot of questionable things, but I think his comments during the Essjay controversy are really sensible: If you want to construct a persona to edit Wikipedia that's fine, but don't portray yourself as an authority when you aren't one. Even if what these people are doing is obviously repugnant (I don't agree with doxxing people under most circumstances, so I'm not going to read the article you linked to know exactly what they're doing), as long as they're just editors who are working within the Wikipedia system, I don't think it's right to pick them out and say, "You are not worthy of anonymity," unless they make who they are an issue first and who they are is actually a salient fact.

[feelthedarkness]

These people absolutely do not deserve anonymity, as that is something they wield as a weapon via astroturfing and sockpuppeting. If they want anonymity they can speak to a reporter who has to put their name on an article where they can be cited as a single voice, and in the case of Nathan Thomas Merrill aka Titanium Dragon, the reporter can decide if his claims are meritorious.  

 

Further, some of these developers are being literally and figuratively accused of crimes, and the accused have a right to to face their accuser. 

[sclpls]

I'm glad other people are drawing the parallel to this misogynistic movement and what's described in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics".

 

https://medium.com/@handler/the-paranoid-style-in-gaming-misogyny-1d412f212bda

[sclpls]

Also good: Reddit is a failed state

 

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/8/6121363/reddit-is-a-failed-state

[Spenny]

A radio show on CBC (think Canadian NPR) ran a story on women in the games industry (click the listen button). It features an interview with the executive director of IGDA. I was genuinely surprised when this show decided to do a story about the games industry, the CBC is not known to be tech savvy. It's a pretty broad look at the issue but I'm happy it exists.

[Bjorn]

I'll start off - yes, you do. It's Wikipedia's decision whether/to what extent to maintain the privacy of their contributors and the reader's decision whether to trust the site in light of that fact. If you contribute to/edit Wikipedia on the understanding that you will have privacy, then you should get to keep that privacy and not be doxxed. Unfortunately, that rule has to stand for people who "do not have any interest in a neutral, factual narrative", but that's up to Wikipedia to sort out, not for others to solve by doxxing.

 

In other words: if you don't like a building, then just avoid entering it; don't set it on fire.

 

What's up with burning building metaphors!

On one hand, I theoretically completely agree with what you said.  But that said, at least one of the editors outed in that piece is clearly (to me) part of the harassment campaign itself.  You can go through the revisions of the Quinn page and the talk history of one of that editor and see the changes he was trying to make (he added an entire section to her article titled "Accusations of Personal and Professional Misconduct" that appears to have just been repeating all the things said by the ex-bf, 4chan, reddit, etc).  I'm not wiling to make such a hardline declarative stance about the privileged anonymity of Wikipedia editors when you have someone trying to control the Wikipedia article of another human as part of a campaign to harass and smear her. 

[James]

It's like I walked into a burning building and made a burning building analogy.

 

In other words: if you don't like a building, then just avoid entering it; don't set it on fire.

:tup:

[Bjorn]

Wikipedia also has a long, and troublesome, history with its gender demographics, ranging from 85-90 percent of its editors being men, and in cases like this, it's almost entirely men making the decisions of how women's lives should categorized and described. The obvious solution is to get more women involved, but it's been years and the problem is ongoing (sometimes due to the very nature and structure of Wikipedia that tries to discourage them from participating).
 
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/
 
I'm not advocating for burning any buildings down, just for calling in the exterminator.

[BadHat]

Man, now I've had time to sit on that rant for a bit I'm not really sure if I came across that well. I mean the vitriol was 100% intentional, like I said I was venting, but I feel like I should clarify that I wasn't trying to indict any legitimate discussion of ethics or whatever other topics have come out of this shitstorm. I was reacting to a pretty common attitude I saw, which was people brushing right past the very real harassment happening right in front of their faces, and then taking as gospel whatever conspiratorial nonsense came their way. Like, if any positive discussions come out of this that's totally cool, I just don't think it's worth ignoring what is absolutely definitely happening in order to discuss what might possibly be happening.

 

Anyway, maybe this was obvious already, just didn't want to seem like a massive ass. Massive Asslice.

[Griddlelol]

Wikipedia also has a long, and troublesome, history with its gender demographics, ranging from 85-90 percent of its editors being men, and in cases like this, it's almost entirely men making the decisions of how women's lives should categorized and described. The obvious solution is to get more women involved, but it's been years and the problem is ongoing (sometimes due to the very nature and structure of Wikipedia that tries to discourage them from participating).

 

 

My university holds a monthly women in science wikipedia edit-athon. I think that's a cool idea and I'd love to get involved, but I'm sure I'd feel a little out of place (not to mention I don't know enough about women in science).

[juv3nal]

Jaya Saxena at the Toast weighs in with "I'm A Gamer"

 

Oh, so female Hopscotch players can demand all Hopscotch boards can be drawn with them in mind, with fucking PINK CHALK or something, but I call them out on it and I’m “cis male scum”? Reverse sexism.

 

also the comments section is pretty good, due in no small part because the toast's moderation will take absolutely zero misogynist shit

 

There's a reason it's "patty cake, patty cake, baker's man" not "patty cake, patty cake, baker's person".

WAKE UP SHEEPLE. The feminists will capture you and make you their cake-slave!

[sclpls]

This isn't entirely about feminism, but it does have a lot to do with our sexual identities, as well as age, and there is a lot to think over in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/magazine/the-death-of-adulthood-in-american-culture.html?_r=0

[sclpls]

That thing on the Toast is really funny and on point.

[BobbyBesar]

So, those comments are pretty good, I was skimming them mildly amused until I got to this one:

f girls were meant to play jacks they'd be called jills amirite

 

Which completely slayed me, for reasons I am unable to explain.

[Argobot]

This isn't entirely about feminism, but it does have a lot to do with our sexual identities, as well as age, and there is a lot to think over in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/magazine/the-death-of-adulthood-in-american-culture.html?_r=0

 

Thank you for linking this. The subject of adults clinging to childish pursuits is something that I've been thinking about for awhile (I strongly agreed with the Slate YA article that AO Scott references) and it is frustrating to see intelligent people willing turn infantile over fandom. But I had never really connected this to the role of women in society. 

 

A few weeks ago I saw the movie Obvious Child, which is a comedy about a young woman who gets an abortion. The woman in the movie and I are the same age, and while I would (maybe incorrectly) consider myself more "adult" than that character, I could still strongly relate to many of the problems she faced, some of which were the direct result of her inability to mature. Women are finally being allowed to shirk responsibility in the way that men have always been able to, but Scott is completely right in saying that these women aren't distaff Adam Sandlers; they are more substantial, almost subversive, and unapologetically human.

[Griddlelol]

Put me in the "revelling in immaturity" camp. I am unashamedly immature because contrary to what the author feels, immaturity and maturity aren't mutually exclusive. 

The Slate YA article also seems to be under the same impression that one cannot read things aimed at children, but also love things meant for adults. That whole premise I find ridiculous, it's like people are one dimensional and only like one kind of thing.The idea that escapism is a bad thing irked me too, but that didn't seem to be her central theme. 

 

Not really the thread for this, but the article was interesting, despite my disagreement with the author. 

 

 

Rather ironically, the Slate YA article has links to buy YA fiction books on amazon. Made me chuckle.

[osmosisch]

The thing is that you only have so much time, and according to a certain perspective, time spent not improving something about either yourself or the world in some manner is, in essence, wasted. This is probably somewhat a product of age. Youth does not recognise its unavoidable end (nor should it, probably).

YA fiction and the like generally poses so few questions and has such a one-dimensional perspective that it's definitely not self-improving and thence is, according to the above perspective, is a net loss. Opportunity cost is a real thing.

Of course, the counter is that relaxation/pure enjoyment is required by most people. But exclusively consuming nonchallenging media is definitely a poor choice in my book.

[Griddlelol]

Of course, the counter is that relaxation/pure enjoyment is required by most people. But exclusively consuming nonchallenging media is definitely a poor choice in my book.

 

I don't read any YA fiction, if I read I want to choose the best, most thought-provoking book I can find, but that's because I don't read a lot. Maybe 3 books a year. I get my escapism from video games.

I'm not old enough to be constantly considering my own demise, but I am old enough to pursue progression, but you can't be getting better at things without occasionally vacating all the thoughts from your head.

 

I've always thought of wasting time as never a waste if it helps recharge and de-stress you. That is progression towards something, and what I was talking about when I said immaturity and maturity aren't mutually exclusive. 

[Bjorn]

Put me in the "revelling in immaturity" camp. I am unashamedly immature because contrary to what the author feels, immaturity and maturity aren't mutually exclusive.

 

I didn't feel like that's what the author was arguing, it was that this traditional idea of what it meant to be an "adult" has been broken, but that it was probably a fictional idea all along.  Particularly for men who have often had space, encouragement or an expectation to indulge in more immature pursuits, but now women are getting to indulge immature behavior in the same way.

[Twig]

The thing is that you only have so much time, and according to a certain perspective, time spent not improving something about either yourself or the world in some manner is, in essence, wasted.

Yeah but that perspective is bullshit, so it's not really worth considering. If I want to consume some entertainment garbage to feel good, then there is literally nothing wrong with that.

[JonCole]

Yeah but that perspective is bullshit, so it's not really worth considering. If I want to consume some entertainment garbage to feel good, then there is literally nothing wrong with that.

 

Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't have said it this way, something more like "improving" and "wasting time" are both completely subjective. But yeah.

[osmosisch]

Well I guess I done got told.

[Twig]

Haha. Damn right! ):<