The Rogol RFC and collective punishment

For anyone who hasn’t been awake for the last week, our old pal Rogol is still pestering the Wikimedia mailing list, in a desperate bid for attention from his newfound homies over at Wikipediocrayzy.

And this time the mailing list made a special RFC, just for Rogol. It is here, and what cowardice – pretending to be all about posting limits and unnamed accounts.

And it is utterly stupid, because everyone knows it is about Rogol, and everybody knows that collective punishment doesn’t work. It only causes resentment, and a lack of respect for the people in authority who refuse to meet the issue head on.

Which is just what Rogol wants.

Wikipediocrazy was not Rogol’s first port of call.  But Rogol’s earlier bid for attention over at Proboards didn’t go so well, they were just unable to focus — even now, they’re babbling on about Greece and tomatoes.   Proboards may have crashed and burned earlier this week, but I did manage to rescue this little tidbit from the fire — a comment from Rogol revealing his master Wikipedia strategy for…something…? (Green added, typos are his own.)

I have posted comments at the wikimedia-l email list on two topics: Diversity and EEO-1 and Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces. I do hope that independently-minded readers willfind them sufficiently interesting to cross-post to appropriate other mailing lists and show as much interest as possible in debating those topics.

The object in the first case is simply to embarass the WMF into doing something. Making them do something they had not planned to do, or do not want to do, or had never even though of, but feel they now have to under Community pressure, creates resentment, consumes resources and creates a generally unhappy atmosphere for debates over other issues.

The object in the second case is to emphasise the division between Foundation and Community by focus on such issues as who gets to authorise the code and who benefits from it. Postings which are reasonable and reasoned but firmly on one side or the other will do that. If someone were to make particularly extreme posts and get banned for it, that would show that the WMF was censoring debate, disrespecting democacy etc.

Crossposting comments to WMF blog posts on these matters will also help publicity. If all those cross-posts link to the email of one particular author, that would look odd. Probably linking to independent but well-thought-out independent comments is the most helpful (to the blog readers, I mean, of course).

So our little Rogol finally found a purpose in life, manipulating Wikipedia to make people unhappy and suck the fun out of everything for everyone else.  He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the issues he’s supposedly raising, he’s just nagging for the sake of nagging, and looking for attention.

And the sad thing is, there really are issues worth raising, and difficult questions that should be asked, but now no one is going to take them seriously, because they now see it is all just a sham to impress their little boyfriendz back at Hasten The Day.

When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

Chargée d’Merde

Oh dear, someone left Rogol in the dungeon. Yes, the blog has a dungeon.  He’s been there since the 4th of July weekend, while the rest of us all had a nice vacation.  It wasn’t me, it was the other Genderdesk, my new Chargée d’Merde and Evil Twin, but I suppose I will have to let him out to give him a chance to respond.  What a pest.

4 thoughts on “The Rogol RFC and collective punishment

  1. As always, the classics put it best.

    Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!

  2. If that means you think I owe you a platform, I do not, much less a platform to spout interminable silliness like the comment above. You have been invited to post a link here to your own platform, on the off chance that your motive is not mere disruption but that you might actually have something to say, but so far you have declined to do so.

  3. Let me use your hospitable column to quote part of an email I sent to a WMF senior recently

    I actually care quite deeply about knowledge, having spent a significant portion of my life creating knowledge and promulgating it in various ways. My experiences suggest that Wikipedia, far from promoting knowledge, is actually damaging the fragile knowledge eco-system (other more malign forces are also at work).

    However that may be, if you look at my contributions on Meta, you will find that I spent a very considerable amount of time and energy attempting to assist the Foundation to develop its strategic thinking; to engage with its own community; and to look outward to the astonishing variety of work underway in the research and innovation spheres. In the latter sphere especially, which I was at the time quite closely involved with, I offered to broker introductions to some of the people and institutions engaged in this radical new work, and to suggest ways in which their thinking and help could be brought to bear on the very substantial challenges facing the Foundation and its mission

    My efforts gained precisely zero traction. You now suggest that you need my help. You could have had it in 2015 or 2016 just by saying so. That offer is no longer on the table. I am sure you understand why.

    My current view is that the Foundation as an organisation is actually standing in the way of the mission it purports to espouse. It is far too heavily oriented towards its own organisation survival by way of generating income, it is increasingly uninterested in the “little people”, willing to depend on large donors and ultimately making itself independent of any donors at all. Its projects, and the donations they attract, are sustained at the expense of unrewarded and unsupported work by volunteers who are treated with either contempt or neglect. Its communications are at best described as divorced from reality. The organisational culture rewards mediocrity and tolerates a level of ineptitude that cannot be justified. Its staff is bloated and underproductive. It is inwards looking, complacent and reactionary. In short, it needs a radical, even revolutionary, change if it is to have any chance of promoting its mission.

    I have said all these things before, in public fora of the WMF and of its critics.

  4. I doubt if you are telling them anything they don’t know already. Every organization in the universe – governmental, non-governmental, and corporate – has these problems. But you, and you alone have the magic bullet, which is to introduce them to some Brits who publish research. And you don’t offer any proofs, examples, or links to their research. We are expected to take it on faith. Whatever.

    My Chargée d’Merde and Evil Twin has suggested a two-comment limit per blog post for you, in the interest of allowing you to answer specific criticisms directed at you. If you have further comments, have proofs of how “Wikipedia is damaging the fragile knowledge eco-system”, wish to advance your right-wing agenda, or simply bloviate, I would suggest sending me a link to your blog, which I will add to your post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s