Advanced Search Protips

What Is The 'Homer Sharingan' Meme On TikTok? The Viral 'Simpsons x Naruto' Crossover Memes Explained
Who Is 'Fruitsnacks' On TikTok? The Viral E-Girl And Underground Rap Influencer Explained
'The Humble Apostrophe' And 'The Nefarious Anglerfish': The Grandiloquent Caption Memes Explained
Guts Cosplayer With An Impossibly Huge Sword On His Shoulder Inspires Redraws
What's Up With Memes About A 'Leopards Eating People's Faces' Political Party? Memes About Face-Eating Leopards Explained

+24

GamerGate - Image #884,507

PROTIP: Press the ← and → keys to navigate the gallery, 'g' to view the gallery, or 'r' to view a random image.

Gamergate is not going away, not any time soon, so even if media reports were accurate, that would not mean to me that we should compromise on our principles of quality and neutrality in response to a forced narrative My point here is not to say that there is nothing wrong with the consumer revolt I actually think it needs a fair amount of work. But I want you and others to understand that misrepresenting people is not helpful I've recently seen Wikipedia talk pages in which people who are - and I don't know how else to put it - vicious assholes - are misusing Wikipedia's mechanisms to attack the good intentions of volunteers. It is very difficult for me to buy into the notion that Wikipedia is "really about creating a tree encyclopedia" when every single experience I have personally had with it involved admins and editors reverting, locking, banning, etc No, not all editors. But there's a huge contingent to the extent that for good people - and I respect your letter and assume good faith that you are a good person - the name "Wikipedia" is toxic Even if 90% of the supporters are good and 10% are bad, the bad are poisoning the message for everyone. That's not an evaluation of right and wrong, just an observation of a clear fact. You see, a big part of the problem is that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but a wiki. And so there is literaly no way to have any quality control of any kind. There is no way to see what is or is not a biased position in a Wikipedia article I have had several people over the past weeks say to me lt is not about wiki bureaucracy. I was prepared to believe that. But discussions usually very quickly move to edit wars in which double standards are used and the rules are applied in a one-sided way. That's sick The contingent of people who are interested in writing objective articles and to eliminate bias need an actual organization- with a mission statement, with a board of directors, with elected people who represent the encyclopedia. Barring that, you should very much expect the media to continue to accurately report that the Wikipedia community is associated with edit wars, hidden agendas and conflict of interests. But actually, in fact, it is I know that may pain you to hear. You thought you were taking part in a movement that would be about creating a free encyclopedia. A movement that would stand for the right to objective truth of all users That would welcome everybody into the world of knowledge and would shame those who would engage in selling lies as the truth. I admire all of those things But Wikipedia has been permanently tarnished and hijacked by a handful of people who are not what you would hope You might not be the person to enable it. I don't know who is. But I strongly recommend that someone organize an "editor's union" of sorts, with a real mission statement, with real rules, with real organization and leadership Wikipedia's failed autocracy is getting you nowhere, particularly for the reasons I have outlined in this note -A Gamergate Leader

View Gallery Random Image

+ Add a Comment

Comments (2)

Display Comments

Legal Information: Know Your Meme ® is a trademark of Literally Media Ltd. By using this site, you are agreeing by the site's terms of use and privacy policy and DMCA policy.
© 2007-2024 Literally Media Ltd.