• 6 Posts
  • 174 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2024

help-circle

  • This user’s entire history (username included) is spent signal-boosting attacks against Wikipedia. (Incidentally, they just deleted one from this very community because they got called out for it). This user is a ridiculous troll and should be banned from communities for their transparent, bad-faith agenda. I’m sure if there’s a story worth posting, somebody other than “wikipediasuckscoop” can post it. It’s so transparent that in an age where the Internet is blanketed with far-right disinformation, one of the last remaining bastions of truth that refuses to compromise and bend to said disinformation will come under attack by bad-faith, far-right actors desperately flailing to discredit it. This user doesn’t give a single shit about gender equality; they simply aim to discredit a resource standing in the way of their agenda.

    A gender gap is a longstanding and severe issue on the English Wikipedia, but there’s a lot this article leaves out about its monumental and ongoing efforts to increase its coverage of women and to welcome more women into the project. This especially includes WikiProject Women in Red, far and away Wikipedia’s largest collaborative project whose entire purpose is to create new biographies about women. A large part of this biographical underrepresentation stems less from a bias in the editors themselves and more from the way that historical women have often been left out of published, reliable sources, and it’s taking scholars enormous efforts to bring those women to the surface today. It also says: “just 10-15% of its editors are female.” What this fails to acknowledge is that there’s an option simply not to declare your gender at all. To be clear, the ratio is atrocious, but 10–15% is likely an underrepresentation: women may be substantially less likely to self-declare their gender on the Internet than men. The Wikimedia Foundation has outreach, activism, etc. focused specifically on recruiting women to the project and has for well over a decade now. Wikipedia really is trying, and its experienced editors are constantly aware of this.

    The article does put forth three hypotheses for why this gap exists, but I don’t think they put forth compelling evidence for the hypothesis that it exists because of the culture on Wikipedia or that it’s – in general – Wikipedia’s “fault”.


  • This user’s entire history (username included) is spent signal-boosting demonstrably false, bad-faith attacks against Wikipedia. I have no idea how this post has a ratio of 28–0 when the article’s premise is that the ADL of all organizations is a good arbiter of what is antisemitic when it comes to coverage of Israel’s genocide in Palestine. The article starts with “This past March, researchers from the Anti-Defamation League accused Wikipedia of biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

    Newsflash: it isn’t. The ADL consistently treats anyone who dares to challenge Israel’s genocide as antisemitic. This user is a ridiculous troll and should be banned from communities for their transparent, bad-faith agenda. I’m sure if there’s a story worth posting, somebody other than “wikipediasuckscoop” can post it. It’s so transparent that in an age where the Internet is blanketed with far-right disinformation, one of the last remaining bastions of truth that refuses to compromise and bend to said disinformation will come under attack by bad-faith, far-right actors desperately flailing to discredit it.


    Edit: I’d like to point out that when the article says “propagandists” (i.e. people opposed to Israel’s genocide) and arbitrarily delineates them from “editors”, what it’s failing to point out (likely because a) its author doesn’t understand shit about fuck or b) its author doesn’t care) is that any article related to a conflict between Israel and Arab countries is extended protected by default (on top of other heavy editing restrictions). This means that it can only be edited 1) on a registered account 2) which is at least 30 days old and 3) which has made at least 500 edits. This isn’t 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 typing “Izreel sux lololol” or even just some random sockpuppet account trying to insert anti-Israel bias. You have to be an experienced editor to make changes to these articles. Every single one of these even remotely controversial public changes is put under a microscope and discussed ad nauseum by other experienced editors on the corresponding talk page – not just to make sure that it’s covered without bias per NPOV but that its claims are suitably backed by reliable, independent sources.





  • Not only that, but we make it goddamn trivial for not just Wikipedia but for other Wikimedia projects. Doing this is just stealing without attribution and share-alike like the CC BY-SA 4.0 license demands and then on top of that kicking down the ladder for people who actually want to use Wikimedia and not the hallucinatory slop they’re trying to supplant it with. LLM companies have caused incalculable damage to critical thinking, the open web, the copyleft movement, and the climate.


  • Oh shit, the tone police are here. I’m not under the impression the person I’m responding to is going to change their behavior after this has already been widely talked about to death for years, and so I really don’t care what tone I use. This person is helping make the lives of real, actual, perfectly innocent trans people (and especially the lives of trans women) hell because they a) don’t care about those people or somehow more pathetically b) do care but can’t restrain themselves from buying themselves a children’s toy to that end.











  • The great thing about RISC-V if you care about sovereignty in an age where CPUs run the world is that it’s an open standard. Contrast this with x86 which is owned in some part by US-based Intel and some part by US-based AMD as well as ARM which is owned by Japanese-owned, UK-based Arm Holdings. If you want to use x86, you’re shelling out license money to Intel and AMD, and if you want to use ARM, you’re shelling out license money to Arm Holdings. You never truly “own” what you’re producing.



  • Bruh what? 💀 I chose the highest-profile and arguably best emulators for each major system, let alone that almost every other modern one uses GitHub too. If all of these emulators are flying under the corporate radar, I will deliberately inject myself with rabies and die a slow, agonizing death. I couldn’t come up with this shit if I got cross-faded on meth and fentanyl.

    Legitimately shocked that this abject fucking nonsense got three upvotes. Want to know how I know Sony knows PCSX2 exists? Two former PCSX2 developers are working on “ports” (read: shitty, subpar emulation) of PS2 games to the PS5. They got their jobs because of their work on PCSX2.


    Edit: I’m going to go off a bit more, actually, because I’m sick of living in an era where zero-information dipshits can just say any unresearched, unsubstantiated bullshit online and put it into immediate contention with obvious, demonstrable facts presented with sourcing by a subject matter expert:

    • I’ve included a Wikipedia article where applicable; these articles will often have links to these emulators being discussed in popular gaming outlets.
    • This doesn’t even count emulators like Snes9x, PCSX-Reloaded, and Project64 which are no longer top-of-class but which have their own Wikipedia articles, were wildly popular in their day, and host their code on GitHub.