Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably
wallet 👏 names 👏 are a 👏 biographical 👏 detail 👏 at 👏 best 👏
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably
@gaditb the sheer number of Wikipedia geeks (I hate to say "editors" because that implies some professionalism) who must get a visceral thrill out of deadnaming people on the very first line of a Wikipedia article must be in the tens of thousands at least
*geek types in "real name [deadname]" into the editing box and then collapses limply, lighting a cigarette, satisfied for another day
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably
@hierarchon @Alyx Yeah. They're... improving, slowly, but also stuff like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:LEGALNAME
Like, whatever the heck Snoop Dogg's wallet name is NOT important enough to be the first words of the article.
It's not even important enough to be in the lead.
They should stick it in the Early Life or Personal Life section if they care enough to have it.
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably
@Alyx Yeah. Like there are plenty of reasonable and caring editors,
but like the fact that it's still not settled beyond debate is just.... GAHHH.....
(And also the fact that even with that, with all the bad ones, it's STILL in total way better than possible alternatives like Britannica, is just... holy frick.)
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably
@gaditb eh speaking as a chemist I think Wikipedia is kind of a disaster
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably
@Alyx Reasonable. I was following the developments regarding the Chelsea Manning article when she came out, and so my fires of hatred of Encyclopedia Britannica as compared to Wikipedia will never go out.
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably
@gaditb that's probably where Wikipedia is at its strongest, keeping up with a current thing. but it's kinda garbage as a general reference and the standard of technical writing especially is real poor
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably, transphobia of Britannica, (you're probably not interested in this sorry)
@Alyx Oh no, it wasn't a keeping up thing. That would be UNDERSTANDABLE, at least. No, it was a news story, and someone in Britannica clearly noticed the news story and decided to act on it.
Because they just, (a) changed the name of the article (which, that was the right thing).
And (b) just... transparently REMOVED the gendered pronoun use entirely. Like, replaced every single instance with "Manning".
They just straight-up REFUSED to say "she".
(And even left a few "he"s in there, anyways, because they just... did it so transparently lazily.)
But yeah, that's my kvetch about Britannica, and doesn't weigh in on how Wikipedia does a bad job as a general reference.
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably, transphobia of Britannica, (you're probably not interested in this sorry)
@gaditb ohhhh ok
that was really gross of them
Wikipedia take that's a cold take here probably