Slate Columnist David Auerbach Criticized Wikipedia. Now Wikipedians Want Him Fired
breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/left-wing-wikip...
breitbart.comPosted Jul 5, 2016, 8:02 PM UTC
4819
breitbart.comAs Auerbach is a fellow Wikipedia editor, Gamliel’s behavior likely violates the site’s broad-ranging ban on “off-site harassment,” which prohibits editors from pursuing vendettas against their peers, even outside the confines of the online encyclopedia.
Wikipedia’s definition of harassment is broad-ranging, covering all behavior intended to “make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.”
It’s hard to see how a Wikipedian threatening the job of a fellow editor because they found said editor’s opinions to be disagreeable wouldn’t fall under the site’s definition of harassment. Yet when Breitbart Tech reached out to the Arbitration Committee, which has the power to enforce the site’s rules and sanction rogue editors, we received no response.
Also ties in TDA's story
“If they think what I did was harassment, then they really can’t argue that Gamaliel’s actions didn’t fall under the harassment policy” said The Devil’s Advocate in a comment to Breitbart Tech.
10
Expect a spaghetti spill from Gamaliel, this is by the same author that Gamaliel accused of 'targeting' him with a "thoroughly inaccurate" article last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=679675224
6
"Auerbach then attempted to reach out to other board members of Wikimedia DC and Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee to ascertain whether the organization stood behind Fernandez’s behaviour. He received no reply via email, and public rebuffs via Twitter. Bizarrely, one Arbitration Committee member refused to “give comment on demand” and then added that she would not do “unpaid labour.”"
That's how Wikipedians usually act when they receive some real criticism.
6
In this case, he asked her to confirm that Gamaliel was on the Wikimedia DC board, and she pointed out that she didn't have anything to do with WMDC, and that he should ask them. Hence the "unpaid labour" comment.
I didn't see the "give comment on demand" quote from her, so I don't know the context for that, or if that is a direct quote.
1
Heads up. Looks like @WikiGamaliel disappeared from Twitter.
4
Just a coincidence!!!
Plenty of Archives and screenshots though.
4
Auerbach was doing research into Gamaliel. Gamaliel got angry and sent some stupid tweets on Twitter. Gamaliel was an idiot, but so what? He's far from the only person who has stupidly sent angry messages on Twitter.
4
So it's okay for Fernandez and Hyland to try and threaten Auerbach's career because Fernandez "got angry"?
7
No, it isn't. On the other hand, this seems like everyone is being a bit precious. It is just a couple of tweets, sent in anger. Candace Owens started a change.org petition over a journalist; Vordrak contacted Gamaliel's Vice Chancellor with inflated charges over child protection; and there was a whole campaign to get Alison Rapp fired (and no, I'm not blaming any particular group over that). That's just three - there were a lot more.
I'm not, in any way, supporting Gamaliel here. But there does seem to be a problem of scale.
4
- Candace Owens started a change.org petition over a journalist
- Vordrak contacted Gamaliel's Vice Chancellor with inflated charges over child protection
- there was a whole campaign to get Alison Rapp fired
What does any of that have to do with wikipedia, specifically wikipedia's policy on off-site harassment which Fernandez violated with his tweets?
Do any of the people you mentioned have active wiki accounts?
4
I'm not relating them because of Wikipedia, but because of the scale of the response. What we're talking about here is fundamentally a couple of stupid tweets. Not a campaign, or trumped up accusations, or a petition - just some stupid comments, qualified the next day, and then deleted. It seems that the level of reaction to this is out of scale for what actually occurred.
2
Getting Rapp fired was done by Official GamerGate at Kiwi Farms.
1
Gama did those tweets hoping they would have an effect.
Oh, he got an effect, all right. But because he's an inept buffoon, part of the effect was him getting conked in the head by his WP:BOOMERANG
Gama, I'm going to miss you when even Wikipedia tires of you. I see a future for you at RationalWiki, though, so it's not a total loss.
7
Repeat after me: "It's okay, when we do it!"