Before you click on this you probably want to make sure the boss is not looking over your shoulder and the kids are out of the room. This is not even a turn-on, in any way, it is just gross.
This is also a silly topic for a category, because everyone knows computer technology does not wear clothes at all. It’s just not what machines do. And these images don’t have anything to do with machines, either. In some cases these are just nude bodies with stuff written in magic marker. Yeech.
So here is the edit war. Today’s action centered mainly on attempts to add “Category:Sexual objectification” to the images, which makes as much sense as the other category, really. Also there were some attempts to add the description “nipple” to images with a nipple, while the two guys warred to remove any descriptions. It looks like they want people to think the images are something scientific, instead of just the usual gratuitous locker room stuff. Here is the edit history.
Oh wait, this is about workforce and U.S. politics after all….
This other tweet aged pretty well too.
“Locker room values”, lol.
Locker room values, indeed.
But if you remember, that one wasn’t really about the San Diego conference either, #lockerroomvalues was about Trump’s statement that he can “grab women by the pussy” any time he wants, because he is so rich they don’t dare complain. Trump tried to excuse it by calling it “locker room talk”.
Oh dear, is the “shrinking breastaurant” doing poorly? Is “locker room values” a poor business model? Tsk, tsk.
It’s amazing how many lessons for Wikipedia can be taken from the foibles of the Trump administration.
“No one cares if someone swears; what they should care about is if someone becomes so hard to work with that it gets in the way of developing good content. That was the open question before the Committee, not whether the phrase “fuck off” is inherently upsetting.” — Euryalus¹
This, ladies and gentlemen, is not some 12 year old kid picking his nose on the playground and trying out his “big boy” fuck-talk vocabulary. This is a member of the arbitration committee firing off f-bombs into the echo chamber of the English Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, and who is in turn being cited like Moses on the mountain bringing down the ten commandments.
This is someone who believes there is absolutely nothing wrong with telling someone to fuck off. And this is someone whose sense of their own authoritarianism is so absolute that they think there is absolutely nothing wrong with imposing their own arbitrary local workplace standards as interpreted by them as a substitute for international and global standards agreed on by community consensus. These are the people who set the tone for the entire project.
“Rule of thumb – if you could do or say it in a standard real-world workplace, feel free to do or say it here (and plenty of people where I work swear in a collegiate manner every day).” —Euryalus ²
So who is this Euryalus person and what kind of “standard” place do they work, if they talk about fucking all the time? A brothel? A locker room?
And just like a room full of chimpanzees, the rest of the arbitrators chime in with their own f-bombs: Opabinia regalis, GorillaWarfare, Amanda (aka DQ) all have to drop gratuitous f-bombs to prove they’re one of the boyz, and even Newyorkbrad, who used to have more class than that. Do we really think he sits up in his law office and talks the same way he talks now on Wikipedia?
At this point I have to admit to a little schadenfreude — there may be some extenuating circumstances here, as one of the main people being told to fuck off is that nasty little Toddst1, who every time he is brought to a noticeboard pretends to go on vacation or retire until people feel oh so sorry for him and then when the latest miserable episode falls off the radar, three days later he’s back. Maybe for just this one admin we could have a “3x fuck off” standard similar to the 3X revert edit war limit….
That the arbitration committee is once again talking about these playground issues is a measure of how unprofessional the Wikipedia has become and how the lack of decorum goes all the way to the top. Truly, as someone said recently, the arbitration committee is children telling adults how to act.
So “no one cares if someone swears”?
Yes, people do care if someone swears. It matters where there are small children, where there are people with security clearances, where there are public representatives of religious organizations.
Does the arbcom really not get the basic workplace standards of “suitability”, and “conduct unbecoming”? It is an unspoken condition of employment in the private sector that you must not become a public disgrace.
The edgy, outrageous, in-your-face LGBT culture of the West Coast simply does not fly in the rest of the country. It will close off access to some parts of society, in particular where there are small children. People do care what kind of people are around their children.
So now we are getting around to it, that the arbitration committee is not composed of people with children, they are children themselves. In fact, you cannot keep people in the movement once they have children, because it’s just too expensive.
So check this thread:
“Salary needed to afford the median house in San Francisco is now $303,000. Not a misprint. $303,000. According to the California Realtors Association Again, that salary is $303,000”:
“As a non-profit employer, I cannot see how we reconcile this with a future for our organization in San Francisco. Its nonsensical for our staff, our donors, our ability to recruit and retain.”
As a non-profit employer, I cannot see how we reconcile this with a future for our organization in San Francisco. Its nonsensical for our staff, our donors, our ability to recruit and retain. https://t.co/4dA7l2GkMC
Once again, it’s time to play “Wikipediocracy’s locker room values”.
In our last episode, newly minted Executive Director Katherine Maher had just tweeted from the Wikimedia conference in San Diego:
Tartan bras? Ewww.
A little later, the mystery was solved by none other than Wikipediocracy’s main moderator and pond scum, Zoloft/William Burns, who just happened to be at the same conference, checking out the tartan bras.
At the Tilted Kilt you can meet all kinds of scantily clad women wearing tartan bras who have online profiles written in gushy monosyllables and are just dying to be your newest BFF.
So what are the woman-bashing Wikipediocrazies up to now?
They have adopted a street waif named Graaf from the Netherlands, a self-described old white hippy with no education, who has spent the last few months since his global ban making the rounds of the criticism sites, lambasting women for some unintelligible thing about the “gender gab”. In particular, he is fixated on the personal appearance of Katherine Maher, and on someone in the Netherlands named Moira. Graaf should fit right in with Wikipediocracy.
Recently though, Graaf had a little run-in with the only woman who is currently active on the site, a visiting crank named Brill Lyle. Now Wikipediocracy doesn’t usually tolerate women, but they will make a temporary exception for certain kinds of women:– ditsy women, women who are sexually ambiguous, and bizarrely aggressive women with macho avatars. For the moment at least, they find Brill Lyle amusing and after Graf’s latest outburst they were even willing to put him on ice for a few hours, as a token gesture, even if he was quickly unmuted.
The run-in centered around the newly hired WMF Vice president of Communications from Kenya, Kui Kinyanjui, and as is their habit, the Wikipediocrazies proceeded to make all kinds of comments and assumptions about her without bothering to google her profile, as they would a man. But even the cranky Brill Lyle is not that dense, and provided a little reality check by posting the search links. Whereupon the Graaf launched on this cringeworthy tirade:
“and do you really thing I don’t understand why [the WMF] hire suddenly some femal (sic) communication person for there (sic) contacts with press? To shake a bit with here (sic) “female parts”? or to flirt a bit like Maher did with that journalist with here (sic) in practice is everything possible? Or with here (sic) sexy outfit with here Fact Checkers bull on that stage?”
So the idea of accusing a women with perfectly adequate qualifications of being hired for men to stare at her body must have been too much for even the sleazy tartan-bra-ogling Zoloft? Who immediately noted it and objected to the blatant misogyny?
Aha ha ha ha. No.
It was the “bone in nose” comment.
So trashing a professional woman, a new WMF staffer, for no reason at all other than being born female, is just fine, as long as you don’t go all Africa on her. Whatever.
And what about Maher’s attire, that Graaf finds so transgressive?
She has expensive taste, to be sure, but no more than any other ED. That’s how they are supposed to dress, up there in the rarefied atmosphere of the C-suite.
And the “flirtatious manner”? Judge for yourself, doesn’t float my boat, but I doubt if they are going to put Jimbo up there in a speedo just for me. Here is the whole video.
Note: Just to be perfectly clear, I have no desire to see Jimbo in any scantily clad attire whatsoever, that was just to show the ridiculousness of Graaf’s comments. Jimbo is just fine, dressed exactly the way he is, just Jimbo being Jimbo.
Well well well. This is the first time I’ve seen a fucking WMF employee use the fucking F-word. And he’s in charge of – wait for it – the fucking half a million dollar grant from the fucking Craig Newmark Foundation for getting rid of toxic behavior on Wikipedia.
So what does has this Silicon Valley brogrammer Trevor decided? The machine learning database from Jigsaw and Research:Detox will not be used. Already Trevor has spotted a false positive: “‘this constant vandalism is fucking annoying’ scores a 97%” No, really??!!!!1!! How fucking annoying is that????!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!! HOW FUCKING DARE THEY.
Trevor also seems to think that calling someone stupid is just as toxic as saying they don’t know anything. Well, I say that makes Trevor stupid. In fact, I would say he is fucking stupid. But not to worry, the admins will have bigly tools so they can be aggressive and powerful.
But wait, here’s another gem. Trevor, bless his little hands, thinks that “most (if not all) admins became admins because of their involvement in the content building/management.” And he thinks you can find this out by “browsing a dozen or so RFAs”.
Okay, I’m going to give Trevor the benefit of the doubt here, just this once. For starters, we don’t know his original Wikipedia account, because he’s socking. As he says in this little “fireside chat” video he posted to his user page on Wikia, his original Wikipedia account is “still locked”. All we have to go on is this account, linked to from his staff account. He’s only got 121 edits on enwiki, 64 on mediawiki, and 11 on Commons. Also he has thanked 4 people, so he is moderately thanky. He did write one article, about an album by his favorite band, so meh. Only 80.7% of his edits are to articles, so that’s not a good sign, but with such a low edit count, it might be a false negative. So, no street cred.
What about the videos he posted to his Wikia account? You see a bunch of brogrammers sitting around a table talking. Surprising to see, there are actually women in Trevor’s world, but do they ever speak? No. Why not? What is their story?