eee
1yr ago
HN has always been anti-woke. There are certainly woke-affiliated people that post and complain about the "orange hellsite" like tqbf, but they've never had a majority holding.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find any thread that has significant interaction being largely pro-woke.
As such, I don't understand your assertion that a community reacting the same way it has always reacted signals a shift in the zeitgeist.
eee
1yr ago
In the volunteer workflow there is a link to the rules, but the target is localhost/rules which obviously is useless.
eee
1yr ago
I hated American Factory. They could have made a decent documentary, but instead made a profoundly stupid circlejerk.
This town is completely devastated because of the loss of manufacturing jobs. Factory starts up and offers decent pay, but not as good as before when labour was worth a premium because it was scarce. People still have financial trouble because of debt/medical issues. Somehow this is the factory's fault. Very unironic Cophenhagen ethics. We'll mention that the factory cost billions of dollars that have yet to be paid off and is operating at a loss every month once and somehow never actually internalize what that means. They are just greedy businessmen that aren't paying the workers what they are worth.
They intersperse interviews with mainland China workers that have conditions 10x worse than the American ones, but have zero empathy for their plight. Chinese guy talks about how he has worked 996 and never seen his family for 5 years. American guy complaining that he only gets $25 an hour. American guy talking about how they only get an 8 minute break every hour out of some really hot place in a factory, cut to Chinese guy saying they have 12 hour shifts in the hot area where they aren't allowed to leave at all.
They start getting into the union organizing/busting bit. They paid these consultants $200k to come in and do some union busting. It would have cost less to give everyone that worked there $.50 more an hour for a single month. No, I don't understand the difference between a one-time cost and increasing a recurring cost like labour. I will repeat this same argument ten times throughout the movie because I clearly think it is a slamdunk.
They actually give everyone modest pay raises and other concessions that people were pushing for ahead of the union vote. This clearly means they are evil because what the workers truly need is not better conditions and pay, but a union.
It is really awful because you could have taken what they had and made a good movie, but instead made something that only appeals to someone that already agrees with all of their positions. Hell, I'm on board with 90% of what they want and hated it still.
eee
1yr ago
I think you should look into what ARBCOM is.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In addition to its role in dispute resolution, the Committee determines which editors have access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions, and considers certain matters where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing.
Arbitrators are volunteer users—usually experienced editors and administrators—whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite.
and what they generally do
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed 27 May 2022 (AN notice)
MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
Chlod (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
Elijahandskip (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Leaders/moderators of off-wiki chat platforms (i.e. IRC, Discord, Telegram) should consider the following practices for their platform:
Advertised on-wiki, including at relevant Wiki Project pages and more general pages (e.g. WP:DISCORD).
Instructions and links on how to join are provided.
Users are asked to authenticate to their onwiki identity.
The rules and expectations are posted in a prominent place (e.g. a read-only channel). WP:HARASSMENT, WP:CANVASS & WP:OUTING are considered in those rules and expectations.
There is active moderation to enforce the rules and expectations. The moderation team is made up of trusted members and is sufficiently large for the size of the platform/channel.
They have absolutely zero influence on the Wikimedia Foundation or any of their funding decisions. As much as possible they are not involved in the substance of any editing decisions and are all about behavior. Even if the entire committee was ideologically aligned with you they would not accomplish any of the things you think they have the ability to.
This is like saying we should make sure Catholic umpires are hired by the MLB so a salary cap can be implemented.
It seems like what you actually care about is Board elections which happened a few months ago.
eee
1yr ago
I think you have an extremely warped perception of the Twin Galaxies situation. Most people in high score/speedrun communities knew the site was a total joke for over a decade. Countless people tried to have clearly fraudulent scores/times removed, but most of the time the administration was unwilling to budge. There were a few successful cases where people got things corrected, but they largely gave up. Also, for them to even let you challenge any score you had to have one submitted yourself which meant you had to pay them money and send them a run recorded on VHS and only VHS when people had long since moved on to DVD recorders or a Dazzle.
Here is a SDA thread about TG from 2007
"When twin galaxies repeatedly goes out of its way to explain how they are the official authority on gaming records, they are definately attacking every other game records site. I think that alienates a lot of people (me included). And it annoys me that they have really really shitty records (some of their arcade/console score attacks are laughable), and empty tables of records."
"I wouldn't worry about TG. It seems people who know about speedrunning and high-scoring know better than to go to TG for anything "official.""
"The last time I looked at TG, they said the fastest time in Metroid Prime was 5 minutes. Doesn't sound that official to me." The current record is 44 minutes game time, 1 hour:4 minutes real time. These times have a decade's worth more of optimization and glitches found and the Twin Galaxies rulesets disallow all glitches.
The nerdy people did know it was bullshit.
The Endocrine Society's guildelines and WPATH's guidelines are the most cited and beloved by most activist groups.
Both of them also use GRADE.
The Endocrine Society's clearly indicate the strength of evidence for each of their guidelines and nearly all of them are listed as "very low quality evidence" or "low quality evidence". In the evidence sections they often clearly mention and discuss the studied that support their findings
WPATH is a lot less transparent in their evaluations. They say that anything listed as "we recommend" has high quality evidence and nearly all of their statements are "we recommend". Most of the time things are just mentioned and then they list various citations, without any actual discussion of the specific study. Nevertheless, they say they are evaluating them an adapted GRADE approach.
Neither of them spend much time justifying their use of GRADE.
I have never seen either of these criticized for using GRADE. It is only when the Cass review also uses GRADE, but has conclusions different than those that someone already agreed with is it called into question. This is clearly motivated reasoning and tendentious.
More options
Context Copy link