Bishop Barros, Fernando Karadima and the Karadima pedophile case

When Juan Barros was appointed bishop of the Diocese of Osorno, Chile, a fight broke out as he tried to enter the cathedral, with some 3000 protesters gathered outside. Opponents said he was too close to the priest Fernando Karadima, “Chile’s most notorious pedophile“.

Yeah, that looks pretty divisive.

This week the pope visited Chile and accused the sex abuse victims of slander.  The pope’s visit was met with demonstrations and firebombings of churches. The protests were covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Huffpo, BBC News, etc.

Fernando Karadima

So, English Wikipedia has not one but two articles on Fernando Karadima.  The Fernando Karadima article, at 1,195 bytes, is barely a stub. It has been edited exactly once this year, today, when a San Francisco-based IP removed the word “pedophile” from the article, citing “BLP violation” in the edit summary.

But surprise, surprise, surprise, there is another, and much larger article at Karadima case, topping out at 10,751 bytes.  That one hasn’t been edited at all lately.

Teh google is not amused. It lists the larger article first in its search results.

The Spanish Wikipedia follows the same pattern.  The spinoff article, Caso Karadima, is huge at 40 651 bytes and 54 references.  Yesterday it was edited three times, an IP in Santiago Chile changed “supuestos abusos sexuales” (“alleged sexual abuse”) to “sexual abuse” and “presuntos abusados” (“presumed abused persons”) to “víctimas”, which was reverted 8 minutes later.

The Fernando Karadima article on the Spanish Wikipedia is more developed than the English one, with 10 974 bytes, 11 references, and 9 edits in the last two days, but the spinoff controversy article is still the major one. The article carries a merge template, and a merge discussion has been ongoing since 2010.

Bishop Juan Barros

And Bishop Juan Barros?  His article is in Spanish at Juan Barros Madrid, with all the trappings and boxes of a bishop, and corresponding articles in German and Polish.

But the only mention of his name on English Wikipedia is on the “Karadima case” article.  The names of the bishops trained by Karadima may be blue linked in the “Karadima case” article, but the links are to the Spanish Wikipedia, thus ensuring no English articles get written about these four. are now redlinked with an interwiki link template.

Note: papal apology.


Wikipedia: a unique culture of putting children in charge of adults

Welcome to 2018. Here is your inspirational quote for the new year, courtesy of Kumioko.

People don’t want to work with assholes or in a negative work environment.

They don’t want to work with incompetent morons like a lot of the people at the WMF are or the ones who are in charge of Wiki-administration.

People don’t want to be insulted, denigrated and told they can’t be trusted by children with no real life experience and who are largely uneducated.

Wikipedia has a unique culture of putting children in charge of adults, telling qualified people who are educated, have actual certifications, and are experts in professions in real life that they don’t know as much about a topic as some high school dropout living in their mom’s basement.

Edit war at Trump’s law firm

Joe Lieberman is senior counsel at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and Friedman, and is one of four names on Trump’s short list to replace James Comey as FBI director.  Trump’s relationship with the New York law firm goes back years.

The lede for the Wikipedia article for Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and Friedman includes the information that “Notable clients have included Donald Trump…”

So there was a small audience standing by with a prediction “Look for them to edit that Wikipedia entry in 3,2,1…”

And the internet did not disappoint.  Trump’s name was removed from the list of clients within  hours.  The edit war was carried out from an IP in Horton, Alabama.

Oh my, and the thread has rumors about KBT&F’s ties to Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-run bank, and Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, who bought Trump’s mansion for $95M … who could have seen that one coming?

Joe Lieberman speaks in favor of Betsy DeVos at her Senate confirmation hearing

[And what is that ampersand doing in the title….]

UPDATE: the firm is now known as Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP [source], since partner David Friedman accepted a Trump appointment as ambassador to Israel. Friedman was confirmed by the senate on March 23, 2016, and his name removed from the firm the next day. See official website.

The article has now been protected from IP edits, but Wikipedia has yet to discover the correct name of the firm.


Stephen Miller–wonder what he does in his free time…

Ooooh! and look what else the little Alabama IP has been editing…removing some negative sources from the article about Trump White House advisor Stephen Miller –quickly reverted. And Miller is from …Alabama.

lmao.gif~c200 lmao.gif~c200 lmao.gif~c200 lmao.gif~c200 lmao.gif~c200

The demise of Wikipedia criticism

Kind of sad to see this in a way, because these folk did sometimes provide some popcorn.

But…Wikipediocracy, universally loathed for its rampant misogyny, has been in its death throes for some time, destroyed from within.  The day was hastened some time ago with the departure of Vigilant, who I actually miss, except that he was the one who stuck up for all the other insufferable jerks who made the site so toxic.


wps-takedown-screenshotWikipedia Sucks and So Do Its Critics just went dark this week, along with their companion Blogspot site a few days later,  in an unexplained TOS takedown from their provider.  The survivors are huddled together on the Wikipedia Review proboards, trying to talk bravely about anything except what really matters.


Longtime Wikipediocracy insider Zoloft (William Burns) continues to brownnose at both sites, as does the insufferable newcomer hasten-the-day™ true believer Rogol Domedonfors.


So what is left?  Has Wikipedia become too boring to criticize?  Or is this the harbinger of the demise of Wikipedia itself, finally overcome by the weight of its own groupthink.

BBC’s embarrassing “100 Women” series

bbc-lite[Update: In the last couple of days, BBC has started to publish more articles on this topic, so there is now a “100 Women 2016” series.  They are more topic-focused than BLP-focused, so anyone who wants to use them to write BLPs will probably be disappointed. If anyone wants to take a look, they can be found by using “BBC 100 women” as a search term.]

A few days ago I noticed a new BBC feature, the “100 Women” series, and hoped it might bring some more notable women out of obscurity by actually noting them in a respected published media source.  The series so far is, quite frankly,  a sad piece of fluff.  That is all the more disappointing because Wikimedia UK is planning to partner with the BBC for some editing events in a WikiProject.

My advice?  Skip this lightweight fare and go read the chilling BBC series on international revenge porn at “Sex, honour, shame and blackmail in an online world“.  That one doesn’t carry a byline either, but probably for a very different reason.
Continue reading “BBC’s embarrassing “100 Women” series”

Wikipedia manument

wikipedia ball
Armenian Wikipedia ball

So this week it was pretty hard to come up with feel-good stories about Wikipedia, not to mention Wikipedia stories that do not involve the trashing of women contributors. There was “The Woes of Wikipedia“, a cautionary tale about an academic who got gamergated by the Manchester regulars. There was “Goodbye to the Loudest Drunk in NPR’s Online Bar“, a Bill Moyers piece about eliminating comments,  there was Time magazine’s “How trolls are ruining the internet“.  And there was the warm fuzzy “Can librarians fix Wikipedia’s gender gap?” which librarian Karen Coyle quickly shot down with “Wikipedia and the numbers fallacy.”

So Wikipedia Weekly Sausagefest group on Facebook were absolutely giddy with delight to find a group of Armenians who have made a concrete statue of the Wikipedia globe, which they intend to sink in a lake. This in turn led to many more nostalgic reminisces about Wikipedia statues, in particular the Polish Wikipedia monument, which was so cruelly ignored by Wikipedia leadership, not to mention the mainstream media, and which is now so nobly enshrined on its own Commons page.

But wait, the statue has a boob.  A boob made perhaps by someone who has never seen a boob before, but a boob nonetheless.  I seem to remember this statue used to be all sausage bits.

Wikipedia Monument marked
Completed statue with boob thingy.
all male wikipedia statue with circles and arrows
Proposed Wikipedia statue with an all male cast

Ah yes, here it is. “Poland to honor Wikipedia with monument“, on October 9, 2014. Compare to current article on (on mobile?)

Wikipedia Monument closeup
Closeup of boob-like area

Seems a bit high, 25% women, but hey, it’s art, what’s not to like?

Wikipedia targets women art noobs

little nell and snidely whiplash[Note: ongoing deletion discussions now finished  —  for Holly Fay here (closed as “no consensus” therefore keep), Amber Dalton here (result was redirect to Articulate Ink), Jan Layh here (closed as delete), Carmen Robertson here (moved by ThurnerRupert without consensus to Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers ooh and now moved back (properly–pending closure by an uninvolved admin) by The Interior, who is an actual Canadian) (closed as “no consensus” to delete, therefore keep) and Barbara Meneley here (closed as “no consensus” to delete, therefore keep).]

“Welcome to Wikipedia”, wrote Jim Hayes on Facebook’s Wikipedia Weekly.“10 out of 12 new articles from editathon nominated for deletion.”

Only minutes before, John Mark Ockerbloom had tweeted “looks like 11 #ArtandFeminism articles I thought had simply not been created got summarily deleted w/o AfD…”

little nell with buzzsawThe Editathon is fast becoming the workaround to the toxic Wikipedia “buzzsaw culture” that prevents women from editing. Instead of one individual making a hundred edits, ten people make ten edits each and are gone. Wikipedia gets quality edits from professionals, academics, and experts who are knowledgeable in a field. The trolls from Manchester and Wikipediocracy don’t know who to target. They get nuthin’.

But now it looks like a group of amateur patrollers have targeted a March 8 International Women’s Day editing event just because it is for women.

So here is the meetup page.

And here are the articles listed for creation and their current status, as of 3/15/2016 :

To create: / Created:

In Draft:

little nell and dudley doright - dont forget to kiss the horse