On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If exactly the same article had been written by
someone who has a long
and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very
uncivil, nobody
would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana
wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny
wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the
Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other
people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by
any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did
publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for
the name of the author.
Risker/Anne
I think that is purely speculation. You may be right, but it seems like the
opposite could just as easily be true - that because it was written by a
woman, many people felt much more comfortable ignoring the substance of
what she wrote and attacking the attitude and tone she used to write it.
In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use of
profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in extreme
cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at an individual*.
So it's hard to understand why many editors of long-tenure have reacted in
such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature
of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I would be surprised to learn that many
users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times.
The most likely conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost
exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that
readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.