Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-09/Blog

← Back to Blog

Discuss this story

I hate it when people go away too early. I like Mineola High. --violet nese 22:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What college is Mineola, Columbia? Is my family really Columbia? --violet nese 23:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there are still over 2,000 redlinks in our lists of FRS's, every women FRS has an article.
We have to be careful not to get carried away when creating articles. It's great to create new articles on scientists, but it's important that we read the sources properly, and don't, in our enthusiasm, ascribe discoveries or inventions to them, where the sources do not.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Out of interest, is this an actual or a hypothetical problem? SFB 19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Throwaway email addresses frequently send her requests for dates, condescendingly discuss her body, insinuate that she got to where she is through sexual favors, ask her to reserve said favors for themselves, and when she doesn’t reply, they spew profanities." Angry male virgins are not underrepresented on Wikipedia, unfortunately.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this kind of harassment is the tip of a larger iceberg. People who want to write news columns and such, and also Wikipedians-in-Residence I think, are pushed to provide "profile pictures". Why exactly is that? I imagine some of these guys who post online aren't as pretty as Emily, and to be pushed to provide such a profile photo raises anxiety and fears of discrimination. When they then turn around and post anonymous nasty comments, they may even feel like they are evening a scale. Whatever the reason, we can't condemn discrimination against the pretty without also condemning discrimination against the ugly; like Eros and Anteros, neither cause can grow properly on its own. We should question whether general, routine practices like profile photos are culprits hiding in plain sight, which have evaded due responsibility for the terrible harassment and invasion of privacy that eventually has come to target a few people. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"we can't condemn discrimination against the pretty without also condemning discrimination against the ugly" -- this is not really the same problem. There's no larger iceberg of attacks on ugly people. The iceberg is completely exposed, and any female that posts a picture of herself on wikipedia welcomes a stream of dick pics in return. Even without a photo, simply identifying as a woman is enough. Even claiming to know a woman in real life ("I have a sister", i.e., stalk my username to find her) can result in such antics.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: Well, I've seen several instances of this type when controversies about various Wikipedia people hit Wikipediocracy, where they are always quick to start in on people that way. But to be clear, the "larger iceberg" I referred to was discrimination by appearance in general, not this particular aspect either. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]