Disaster Wikipedia sets new rule to combat “toxic behaviour” - Reverting edits by women and trannies is harassment and makes them unsafe

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Wikipedia is to institute a new code of conduct to battle what the firm called "toxic behaviour" by some volunteers.

The Wikimedia Foundation, the organisation that runs the site, voted on new measures that will be finalised by the end of the year.

Wikipedia is written and updated by volunteers.

Many, particularly women and members of the LGBTQ community, have complained of abuse and harassment from other editors.

Wikimedia's board of trustees said maintaining civility was a core value.

"We must work together to create a safe, inclusive culture, where everyone feels welcome, that their contributions are valued, and that their perspective matters," said Katherine Maher, the chief executive officer of the Wikimedia Foundation.

"Our goal is all the world's knowledge, and this is an essential step on our journey."

What will the new rules involve?
The foundation's binding code of conduct for members will include banning or limiting access if volunteers violate the terms.

It will also create a retroactive review process for harassment that took place before these rules were set.

Wikipedia has become one of the internet's most trusted sources for information, but complaints about gender imbalances and harassment have plagued the platform for close to a decade.

A study from the University of Washington on the gender gap in Wikipedia editors found many female and LGBTQ editors feared for their safety. Several female editors told the researchers their work had contested by male editors or that they received negative feedback from a male editor.

A New York Times article from 2019 also highlighted the concerns some transgender editors have about volunteering for the site. One editor told the paper they received death threats.

How does the harassment work?
Wikipedia is not a formal social media platform like Facebook or Twitter. But its editors can interact with one another and can change the content on a page after it has been written.

This has led to a form of harassment where, after one volunteer adds to a page, another volunteer will remove or change that work moments later, forcing the first editor to redo their work and leading to editing battles.

The development of a new code of conduct will take place in two phases.

The first will include setting policies for in-person and virtual events as well as policies for technical spaces including chat rooms and other Wikimedia projects. It is set to be ratified by the board by 30 August.

A second phase outlining enforcement when the rules are broken will be approved by the end of the year, according to the board's plan.

Related:


Author of said statement, Raystorm, is founder of the Spanish Wikipedia LGBT community, so obvious outcomes of this are obvious.

Expect lots of words about toxic behaviour making trannies feel unsafe, and a consequent in toxic behaviour by trannies themselves
 
Why are people using Wikipedia as a social network? No one goes there to chat. No one cares if a Dutch angel dragon futa edited the kangaroo article. They just want to read about kangaroos.
 
Wikipedia has become one of the internet's most trusted sources for information,
"But we also need to make sure womyn and trannies don't get their fee-fees hurt over editing even if the information they added was inaccurate or untrue."
 
So they're not enforcing NPOV anymore? That's what I take from this. They types of people they're blindly defending more than likely don't care about integrity or factual accuracy.

Also, this article makes me feel this way:

1507412985176.png
 
If you meet anyone who uses that subset of words/phrases you just know they picked up, overnight, around 2013: run the other way.
 
When did libertarians lose control of the internet to leftist authoritarians?

And I remember when teachers would fail you for quoting a Wikipedia article.
 
When did libertarians lose control of the internet to leftist authoritarians?

I think it was sometime after Usenet, Reddit, 4chan, etc. realised that being a haven for child pornography was unlikely to be something they could ever rationalize to normies.

So they went authoritarian, but authoritarian on behalf of trannies and Muslims
 
Time to create a wikipdia account and make bullshit edits all around. If anyone tries to edit my obvious horrendous lies I can just report them for trying to silence female voices and questioning my lived experiences. Saturn being a government hollogram sounds like a good place to start
 
Usenet, Reddit, 4chan, etc. realised that being a haven for child pornography was unlikely to be something they could ever rationalize to normies.
There is virtually no way to prevent kiddy porn in the digital age without becoming a dystopia so just fucking report it and move on. Why does every website format have to degenerate to try and prevent CP
 
There is virtually no way to prevent kiddy porn in the digital age without becoming a dystopia so just fucking report it and move on. Why does every website format have to degenerate to try and prevent CP

People can imagine the Earth, and then they can imagine the Earth without child porn (or guns, or drugs, or poverty, or...) and they just know they can find a way to make it happen if they apply enough force. Because they have strong feelings! Just imagine a better world, bro!

If John Lennon hadn't been shot, he would have deserved it anyway.
 
People can imagine the Earth, and then they can imagine the Earth without child porn (or guns, or drugs, or poverty, or...) and they just know they can find a way to make it happen if that apply enough force. Because they have strong feelings!

If John Lennon hadn't been shot, he would have deserved it anyway.
Liberals bad.
 
Why are people using Wikipedia as a social network? No one goes there to chat. No one cares if a Dutch angel dragon futa edited the kangaroo article. They just want to read about kangaroos.

It's not voluntary. If you are the world's leading doctor specialising in trannies and you write the official DSM entry on them, then on Wikipedia you will be deemed to have a conflict of interest, and will be banned from editing articles on trannies. Also in general if you want to put stuff on Wikipedia that conflicts with left-wing thinking, then your edits will be reverted . If you revert them back you will be banned - you are required to debate the subject on the Talk page with some purple-hairrd obeast. Even if you do that, then if the purple-haired obeasts outnumber you, which they will, your edits will be removed, but now having wasted hours of your time in debate with degenerates.

So if you really want to edit Wikipedia and you're not a degenerate, then you have to stick to really autistic shit like vote counts in elections, or minor species of mushroom. Anything slightly controversial must become a social media fight with tranny freaks.
 
Why the fuck does everything on the internet have to be sanitized for trannies? They make up 0.004 of the US pop but if you look at the internet, you'd think they're as common as oxygen.

I know why. The cabal of brown nosers who gotten into moderation positions on major web sites are trans. Or are sympathetic to the Trans cause. Or just as crazy as the loudest trannies. They get off on having the power to censor people and control the narrative. Its the only power they'll usually have in their lives.

How long until someone just clones Wikipedia to get around this bullshit. I know it'll eventually be co-opted by the cabal, but still.
 
Last edited:
Why the fuck does everything on the internet have to be sanitized for trannies? They make up 0.004 of the US pop but if you look at the internet, you'd think they're as common as oxygen.

An awful lot of people who define themselves as "super mommy protector of the abused, maligned underdog" needed a new project after the Supreme Court parted the clouds and handed down to us flawed mortals a decree from on high that fag marriage was totally protected by the original meaning of the Constitution. That's why.
 
Who is still reading Wikipedia? Bloody normies that can't be arsed to do actual research. I find it the less trustworthy than The Onion.
 
So they're not enforcing NPOV anymore? That's what I take from this. They types of people they're blindly defending more than likely don't care about integrity or factual accuracy.
NPOV comes secondary to "Reliable Sources", which on Wikipedia includes whatever Vox, Buzzfeed, and Vice have to say on the topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom