Thursday, February 24, 2011

Oh ho

Some wag went and created a Wikipedia page for me. A little bird told me it was Fred Bauder. It could use a little finessing. (It's WordStream, for example, not WorldStream.) Do they frown on people editing their own pages?

UPDATE: A helpful commenter pointed me to this discussion. Someone wrote: "I wonder if Elisa, upon finding that 87% of the writers of some publication were WOMEN would also have concluded that it ipso facto it too would have to be 'sexist.' Probably not. But if she did, she'd probably be right. Depending on your definiton of 'sexist.'"

Actually, I almost wrote something to this effect in my original post. I think you could fairly call such a publication "sexist," but only if the publication aimed to be an objective, encyclopedic resource of general interest to readers of all genders. I wouldn't call a women's magazine sexist for being staffed mostly by women. But Wikipedia is not a men's magazine.

Anyway, if Wikipedia's content were produced by 87% women, it probably would not be as gender-biased as Wikipedia currently is. This is because both women and men unconsciously favor men in many circumstances. Most women are not feminists.

36 comments:

  1. Fixed! I love that it mentions your personal life. Are you sure John didn't post it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Most of the info came directly from the bio on the "Meet the Bloggers" page cited on the page. Even the vegetarian bit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Editing one's own Wikipedia page is a very Richard Dawkins thing to do. Or maybe I just mean a live-guy thing. But then that also holds for editing any other Wikipedia page...

    ReplyDelete
  4. You'd better watch out —
    You'd better not pout —
    WikiClaws is watching you —

    Hell hath no furry like a Wikipediot scorned …

    See related thread at The Wikipedia Review.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i don't know, furries seem harmless to me

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's why hell hath no furries. Furries are too cute to go to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the good Wikipedia zealot should be referred to the Wikipedia entry for "fallacy." And then, to really go through the looking glass, should read the shitty arguments in the discussion section there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I reckon y'all don't know many Wiki-Φurries …

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is that the same Fred Bauder that I recall the Colorado state supreme court singling out for special recognition?

    ReplyDelete
  10. So criticizing Wikipedia in my tiny corner of the internet has somehow made me a target for the editors. Could this be why there aren't more women in the Wikipedia community? It's a little threatening.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find the amount of details on your personal life a bit disturbing. That being said, I like the comparison to Richard Dawkins :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. The part about living with a writer named John Cotter and being a vegetarian (which isn't even really true) come directly from here:

    http://www.wordstream.com/meet-our-bloggers

    ReplyDelete
  13. Elisa, for extra credit, discover why there's a Wikipedia article about you, but one about Carolyn Doran is not permitted.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So, in re this (all quoted from the discussion I liked to above):

    Just so everyone understands what's going on here —

    A blogger writes a blog post that is critical of Wikipedia, and the very next day our old fiend Fred Bauder ups and starts a BLP on her …

    Now, maybe she doesn't know it yet, but that's a hostile act and a threat, not a compliment, and she's just lost her freedom and her peace of mind to a Blog Of Masked Identity Sources (BOMIS). If she knew even a tithe of what we know, she'd immediately seek out a sympathetic admin, get herself declared WP:Unnotable, and continue to seek her notability and her salvation in the Real World.

    But will she wise up in time ???

    >>>>Me again. Oh yes it seems pretty hostile and threatening to me.

    Why not just deem me unnotable?

    ReplyDelete
  15. ok, trying to do that as we speak, but i'm new and can't figure out how...

    ReplyDelete
  16. I guess you have to be an admin.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Now I know what you're thinking — How come someone as notable as Fred Bauder does not have his own Wikipedia Biography? Just for starters, he is the founder of his very own wiki-style internet encyclopedia, not to mention being a major figure on Wikipedia itself.

    If you do search Wikipedia for information, you get only this — Fred Bauder

    Curious, no?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here's what I'm thinking: Are you an admin, and if you are so concerned about me, why not delete the page? Why is this a puzzle I'm supposed to figure out?

    ReplyDelete
  19. And, what do you know?! In just a few hours, a Google search for:

    "Elisa Gabbert" Texas

    ...returns a Wikipedia biography about Elisa Gabbert as the #1 search result, out of 2,730 results. You know, because Wikipedia is so useful and always truth.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As far as I can tell, no Wikipedia admin has yet commented on this blog post. However, two scholars of Wikipedia who have both been "banned" from the site are trying to help Elisa understand just how nasty is the true Wikipedia when it is used as an online defamation platform. (And often it is just so used.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm confused as to why you think I don't understand. I've gone from thinking Wikipedia has an unconscious gender bias to thinking it's run by the secret police.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry, I had no intent to mystify. The only power I have in all this is to make enough noise on The Wikipedia Review to have a chance of guilt-tripping someone who does have the power to do the right thing. By rights, Fred Bauder should be severally censured for doing what he did. Knowing Wikipedia as I do, I know that won't happen, but maybe someone else will have a conscience. On jugere …

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, then, we have an alliance of thought about Wikipedia.

    About two hours ago, I had already e-mailed a number of high-level female Wikimedia Foundation leaders about Fred Bauder's suspicious use of Wikipedia to make an example of you.

    However, you will note that the head honcho (honchess?) of that organization has overtly explained that she sees no reason to ever oblige conversation with critics such as myself:

    http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts

    Sincerely sorry that I (and perhaps Jon Awbrey) came off with an adversarial tone, but it's just the war-weariness masking the fact that while this "secret police" aspect of Wikipedia is about a 5-year-old understanding of ours, it is a new perspective for most people when first exposed to it personally.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for being open about it. I was always assuming that someone would deem me trivial and delete the page in due time. If someone at Wikipedia uses it instead to defame me as an evil feminist ... that will really only prove my original point.

    In any case I have all the more reason to avoid the site now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ugh, girl. Speaking of avoiding, aren't you on Facebook, yet? Apart from when people are sharing links to vote for you in some beauty pageant or something?

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nope, only then. :)

    What about YOU, why did you disable the RSS feed on your blog so I never know when you are blogging?? It tears me apart.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I had no idea I disabled it. I really don't understand how my blog works. Honestly! I'll go poking around the settings... doh-di-doh... :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ha! See, I would have left you comment about this months ago, but there's no comment field either!

    Maybe you didn't disable it -- but for some reason I stopped getting updates and couldn't re-subscribe. Seems OK now!

    ReplyDelete
  29. UHmagah! I know it!!! I can't figure out how to let people leave comments!! I swear, I'm the biggest ditz in blog-land. I need to have someone actually sit down at my computer so they can say, "Um. See this little box? You have unchecked it. Now it's checked. Bingo."

    I'll just post comments on your blog. You have smarter things to say, anyway! About smelling good and ideas and all that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. BROOKLYN. I was 100% convinced you didn't want people to find your blog or comment on it, ON PURPOSE. Hold on, I will figure out how to enable comments and tell you how exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  31. OK, so you need to go into the Dashboard, find the Settings tab, then the Comments section within that tab. And screw around with the settings in there. You want to make sure comments "Show" (not "Hide"!), and define who can comment. You can also decide whether you want to moderate or have them approved automatically, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  32. So, do you feel like you're trying to lead someone who is blindfolded and drunk out of a hedge maze? :)

    Seriously-- I wish you could see what I see. In that comments section it is this:

    Comments: Show
    Who Can Comment?: Registered Users
    Comment Form Placement: Pop-Up
    Comments Default for Posts: New Posts Have Comments
    Backlinks: Show
    Backlinks Default for Posts: New Posts have Backlinks
    Comment Moderation: Always
    Show Word Verification: Yes
    Show Profile Image: Yes

    It has always been thus, and no one has ever been able to comment!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh my. This IS a mystery. Try going into Design and clicking the Edit link in the Blog Posts module -- it may be that the actual field where someone would click to leave a comment is somehow disabled??

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'll see what I can find out!! Sorry to hijack your comments section. Ha. I've had the same blog for YEARS. At one point, I had comments. Then they disappeared. :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Reader Advisory : Acronyms Ahead !

    Update on the Biography of Living Persons (BLP) issue:

    Someone was nice enough to initiate an Article for Deletion (AfD) proceeding on your BLP. Folks who know this routine can tell you it's best to sit quietly in the docks — the first time around — there be wiki-piranhas out there, and you don't want them scenting fresh blood. If sanity prevails — it usually doesn't — they will decide that your life and reputation are not enough fun to mess with, and you'll be able to sleep at night and get some actual creative work done. So that's enough about that for now.

    (February 25, 2011 12:00 AM)

    Note. Originally posted in the “Wikipedia Is Sexist” comments, but it didn't go through and I decided it fit better here anyway.

    ReplyDelete