On 29 April 2013 23:34, Michael J. Lowrey <orangemike(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment
offensive. NOBODY
expects to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being "privileged" is no excuse
for doing so. This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created
to try to modify.
Risker/Anne
How so? I would have said the same thing, for the same reason, if the
author had been male. The evidence is that a lot of what she complains
about is the EXACT SAME THING that happens to anybody who comes into
Wikipedia and
attacks editors: some morons act like morons, and a few other cynics start
looking to see whether the complainant's hands are clean. Sadly, our morons
acted like sexist morons, thus confirming all the worst assumptions of
those who don't know how a wiki works. That doesn't give her a free pass
from the same constant attention to which all of us, editors and outside
critics alike, are subject.
And damned if I'll be told to shut up when I point out that an ordinary
working writer would be less likely to get an op-ed in the N.Y. Times than
one of the heirs to a profitable publishing company which might easily be
viewed as an obvious purchaser of the moribund N.Y. Times company, for what
amounts to Hachette's pocket change.
But of course, it's vulgar (meaning "of the common people") to point out
when class privilege takes place. How offensive of me.
Now could we go back to working on substantive matters instead of slanging
at each other?
Michael, you miss my point entirely. This is exactly the kind of nastiness
- trashing someone who takes umbrage at the way Wikipedia does something
that directly relates to her own real life - that brings the project into
disrepute, and that women in particular find hostile.
This entire story is about how truly absurd our categorizations are, and
how it relegates subjects into niches that make it even more difficult to
find them. Yes, it's inherently sexist, and it's inappropriate; however,
it's also deeply entrenched and seems to be almost impossible to break
through.
What it isn't about is what "privilege" the subject of the article may or
may not have had anywhere in her life. That she got an op-ed in the NYT is
because the NYT is interested in what she wrote about; they don't publish
op-eds just because of who the author is, they publish it because they
think there is something interesting about the article. It is a major BLP
violation for you to allege otherwise. I hope you're not going anywhere
near any of the affected articles, or the editors who have had anything to
do with any of the related articles.
Risker/Anne