Wikipedia Incel article: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→History: Gorilla was only able to recreate it due to her administrator status.
(moved to Wikipedia) |
(→History: Gorilla was only able to recreate it due to her administrator status.) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The first English Wikipedia article on Incel came about half-a-decade after the very beginnings of the self-identified community back in the late 90s. Wikipedia debuted on Jan. 15, 2001 and the Incel page was made on July 29, 2004.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20040729080456/http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy</ref> Using archive.org, you can see that the idea of Incel was presented as a neutral term as well as gender-neutral. It was nicely unbiased. For the next decade, incels could find [[IncelSupport]] through Wikipedia and see that it was a place for anyone. Here is an example from 2006: "Yes, hickoryridge, Cernan posted a link to this site on Wikipedia! He's doing a great job, isn't he?"<ref>http://z15.invisionfree.com/IncelSupport/ar/t42.htm</ref> | The first English Wikipedia article on Incel came about half-a-decade after the very beginnings of the self-identified community back in the late 90s. Wikipedia debuted on Jan. 15, 2001 and the Incel page was made on July 29, 2004.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20040729080456/http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy</ref> Using archive.org, you can see that the idea of Incel was presented as a neutral term as well as gender-neutral. It was nicely unbiased. For the next decade, incels could find [[IncelSupport]] through Wikipedia and see that it was a place for anyone. Here is an example from 2006: "Yes, hickoryridge, Cernan posted a link to this site on Wikipedia! He's doing a great job, isn't he?"<ref>http://z15.invisionfree.com/IncelSupport/ar/t42.htm</ref> | ||
The incel article was deleted on 13 August 2015, and then again on 8 October 2015, and then finally on 29 December 2015, at which pointed it was also protected against re-creation. After the [[Toronto van attack]], english Wikipedia admin [[GorillaWarfare]] re-created the article against broad Wikipedia consensus on 24 April 2018 | The incel article was deleted on 13 August 2015, and then again on 8 October 2015, and then finally on 29 December 2015, at which pointed it was also protected against re-creation. After the [[Toronto van attack]], english Wikipedia admin [[GorillaWarfare]] re-created the article against broad Wikipedia consensus on 24 April 2018, after it was protected from re-creation. She overrided the protection using her administrator permission. She wrote most of its content from scratch over the course of 5 months as of mid-2018. This was after they couldn't change the 'involuntary celibacy' article enough as the Wikipedia admin's edits on that article were breaking countless wiki rules so it was moved to 'Incel' so they could break less rules. However, the incel page seems to break a rule just from the name of the page alone, specifically, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms. WPNID] which says to avoid neologisms if longer terms can suffice. | ||
One of the biggest fights on Wikipedia around the time of [[Angela Nagle]]'s (the only real academic authority on incels pre-Minassian) BBC appearance was whether or not to keep the wikipedia incel article as describing a real life circumstance, or change it to describe 4chan culture (instead of just having a fucking article on 4chan culture and not politically denying that involuntary celibacy is a thing). On Wikipedia, the anti-science folks won and incel was re-labled as a subculture causing Wikipedia to purge and revert citations about inceldom from the journal of sex research and other peer reviewed articles which took the concept of involuntary celibacy seriously from an academic perspective. However, people generally revert citations from Nagles work or appearances on the wikipedia incel article because they cant have anyone sympathetic cited, only criticism. | One of the biggest fights on Wikipedia around the time of [[Angela Nagle]]'s (the only real academic authority on incels pre-Minassian) BBC appearance was whether or not to keep the wikipedia incel article as describing a real life circumstance, or change it to describe 4chan culture (instead of just having a fucking article on 4chan culture and not politically denying that involuntary celibacy is a thing). On Wikipedia, the anti-science folks won and incel was re-labled as a subculture causing Wikipedia to purge and revert citations about inceldom from the journal of sex research and other peer reviewed articles which took the concept of involuntary celibacy seriously from an academic perspective. However, people generally revert citations from Nagles work or appearances on the wikipedia incel article because they cant have anyone sympathetic cited, only criticism. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Wikipedia editor [[DaveDial]] threatened a topic ban on gender for editor [[thylacoop5]] despite not having admin privileges after [[thylacoop5]] made the following comment: "The following editors: [[Dave Dial]], [[Jorm]], and [[GorillaWarfare]] have recently suggested that this article should primarily focus on misogyny and [[violence]] and exclude other topics; with the rationale that this is where media coverage primarily focuses. By analogy, Islamism in the media primarily focuses on terrorism by groups such as ISIS/AL-Qaeda. Yet the islamism article has 14 subsections that do not mention militancy. Doesn't that show that there is a precedence on Wikipedia of broadening the focus?".<ref>http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=2045&p=3711&hilit=incel#p3711</ref> | Wikipedia editor [[DaveDial]] threatened a topic ban on gender for editor [[thylacoop5]] despite not having admin privileges after [[thylacoop5]] made the following comment: "The following editors: [[Dave Dial]], [[Jorm]], and [[GorillaWarfare]] have recently suggested that this article should primarily focus on misogyny and [[violence]] and exclude other topics; with the rationale that this is where media coverage primarily focuses. By analogy, Islamism in the media primarily focuses on terrorism by groups such as ISIS/AL-Qaeda. Yet the islamism article has 14 subsections that do not mention militancy. Doesn't that show that there is a precedence on Wikipedia of broadening the focus?".<ref>http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=2045&p=3711&hilit=incel#p3711</ref> | ||
==Post-Minassian Attack Article Content Bias/Tone== | ==Post-Minassian Attack Article Content Bias/Tone== | ||
Against Wikipedia conduct policy, Wikipedia admins changed the tone of an entire article due to a news event. | Against Wikipedia conduct policy, Wikipedia admins changed the tone of an entire article due to a news event. | ||