…And if it weren’t for that one joke by Hannibal, Bill Cosby would be very uncontroversial.

  • Pisha@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The author appears to now be planning a hitpiece on David Gerard:

    With apologies for resurrecting an old thread: I am an independent writer exploring the potential to write an article focused on Gerard’s Wikipedia-related history. I’ve reviewed the information here and the on-wiki behavior and controversies I can find, but if anyone has information I may have missed or other thoughts to share, I would welcome direct messages or replies. In particular, if anyone with an informed perspective is willing to chat at length on the record, I’d appreciate it. I’m an outsider to the whole Wikipedia ecosystem and trying to parse through thousands of pages of history and edits looking for key moments gets rather dense–it’s quite easy for me to miss relevant info.

    https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11466&start=50#p355881

    I, for one, am just psyched to see what Jesse Singal’s research assistant is going to tell us about the evils of Wikipedia.

    • David Gerard@awful.systemsM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      ten years ago the wikipedia cranks had compiled lore on me, and some of it had a vague relation to anything that ever happened! Sure can’t wait to see what a good faith rationalist researcher comes up with

    • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I tried to look up this Mr. Gerard’s lurid wikipedia past expecting at least a torture dungeon or wiki-cult or something; but all I found were a bunch of people grumpy that they couldn’t turn wikipedia articles into cryptocurrency ads.

      Booring.

    • froztbyte@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      “wikipediocracy”? fucking seriously?

      for all the good and bad bits that wikipedia has (and there are notably many of the latter too), a rulership is definitely not among that list afaik. wtf.

      (e: I’m going purely off the domain name there, but holy shit what a name)

      • David Gerard@awful.systemsM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        literally started by a guy who was banned for trying to set up a business to write wikipedia articles, and the evils of JIMMY WAAAAAAAAALES!!! still fill his spleen

    • deborah@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      He also wants us to know that Hannania is much less right than he’s made out to be

      Also he doesn’t grasp that people hate Hanania because he’s a racist, not because of where he falls on the forced left/right spectrum.

      • YouKnowWhoTheFuckIAM@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        People like TW are the perfect distillation of the booksmart Slate Star Codex fan class, who are so completely sealed in their bubble that they aren’t even in touch with major parts of themselves anymore. They lose, or never developed, the capacity to even simulate a coherent theory of mind which would make appropriate sense of what the other person is saying. Brains like a Frank Gehry building with a roof made from sheer enthusiasm supported by warped tent poles of Scott Alexander heuristics sticking out at odd angles from each other.

        Wow, I went looking for something else and found a deeply sad illustration of exactly what I’m talking about:

        https://twitter.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1772398359745012139

      • sinedpick@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Deep into that diatribe:

        Some people’s moral intuitions are that nonexistence is preferable to, or not obviously worse than, existence in a less-than-ideal setting. I wholly reject this intuition, and looking at the record of the persistence of life in the face of adversity, belong to a heritage of those who have, time and time again, rejected it. Life is Good.

        What a disgustingly privileged thing to say. People have survived in shitty situations so therefore more children in poverty is axiomatically good? This guy deserves poverty. (edit: maybe that’s a bit too far but I fucking hate this guy)