• Profile logout login

#wikipedia#gtthe

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 7:00 PM
Sun Nov 15
14 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email

Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email

Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email

Investigations:
John Cook | Email

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email

Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email

Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of MissNormaDesmond MissNormaDesmond
    10/09/09

    In reply to Tech Playboy's Pimp Card

    .
     Reply
    Edited by MissNormaDesmond at 10/09/09 5:22 PM MissNormaDesmond was starred MissNormaDesmond was unstarred
    Image of Swifter Swifter
    10/09/09

    @MissNormaDesmond: Quoth the Marsden, Nevermore.
     Reply
    Swifter was starred Swifter was unstarred
    Image of RonMwangaguhunga RonMwangaguhunga
    10/09/09

    In reply to Tech Playboy's Pimp Card
    stop eye-raping me, James Wales.
     Reply
    RonMwangaguhunga was starred RonMwangaguhunga was unstarred
    Image of Smitros Smitros
    10/09/09

    In reply to Tech Playboy's Pimp Card
    "Card" without the "r"?
     Reply
    Smitros was starred Smitros was unstarred
    Image of Airvault Airvault
    10/09/09

    In reply to Tech Playboy's Pimp Card
    Salieri?
     Reply
    Airvault was starred Airvault was unstarred
    Image of Our Lady of the Massacre Our Lady of the Massacre
    10/09/09

    In reply to Tech Playboy's Pimp Card
    Dude looks like a villain from Stargate. Also, how much of a dick do you have to be to forbid your wife from finishing her nursing degree? That said, Wikipedia is great. It's just a sad fact that the individuals behind great works are usually quite horrible.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond promoted this comment Edited by Our Lady of the Massacre at 10/09/09 4:18 PM Our Lady of the Massacre was starred Our Lady of the Massacre was unstarred
    Image of Swifter Swifter
    10/09/09

    In reply to Tech Playboy's Pimp Card
    Rachel Marsden in 3, 2, 1....
     Reply
    Swifter was starred Swifter was unstarred
    Image of raincoaster raincoaster
    10/10/09

    @Swifter: Yesterday the third-largest referrer to my blog was the search string "Rachel Marsden raincoaster". I mean, she even remembered the capitalization! She was topic du jour in Vangroover twitter circles yesterday because Matthew Good tore her a new asshole on his blog and then I brought up the fights we used to get into on Valleywag.

    And don't kid yourself; she'd still hit it, if she thought it would do her any good. But now she's working for the Torygraph, which is developing quite a line in publishing barely-literate essays by Ex-Mistresses of the Lesser Gods.
     Reply
    raincoaster was starred raincoaster was unstarred
    Image of HobartIcarus HobartIcarus
    09/02/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    Did Greenspun become a sociologist? Is there a reason that anyone should care about his armchair crackpottery? Furthermore, in Greenspun's mind, when did medicine divorce itself from science? I thought it was the other way around, that science legitimized medicine by providing observational instruments and preventative medicine. Before this, wasn't it just unscrupulous quacks boring holes in people's heads to let out the spirits?

    Has it occurred to anyone that some people pursue careers in science because they are impressed by its accomplishments? That it seems an especially noble pursuit when juxtaposed with America's other golden standard for success, which is to become rich pushing widgets on the squandering public?

    I'll grant that Greenspun has raised one important point, which is that scientists are not rewarded in proportion to their contribution to society. But his conclusion--that men are therefore buffoons who don't understand a simple Pavlovian reward system--is way off base. I would love to have the discussion about how to build a system which rewards good science more than it exploits it. But instead I feel compelled to once again try to convince you fucking lay people that we aren't all autistic weirdos, and goofball spazoids. Critical thinking is a practiced skill, not a chemical imbalance. We are this way because we aspire to see things more clearly, not because we’re confused simpletons who aren’t allowed near pointy objects. Much like gymnasts, scientists are people who aspire for some form of perfection. Except unlike gymnasts we produce useful breakthroughs. Also unlike the gymnast, we are not admired for what we do, nor applauded for our effort, but rather scorned as social misfits who are too incompetent to know just how pathetic we really are.
    But we know better, iplaudius, and because you missed it I'll reiterate. You applaud the gymnast because a backflip is obvious and it’s something you can't do. If you could follow the scientist’s logic, if it were as obvious as a backflip, you would surely do the same because it is no less an impressive display of technical mastery. If results matter then you owe them a standing ovation. But you are insecure, so you marginalize their accomplishments and label them mad men. To you scientists are autistic, flawed thinkers--anomalies of the human genome which produce idiot savants who spout off pi to arbitrary decimal places but have no intrinsic social value. Like tying a yoke to the ox, you harness the power of the nerd to build your evermore sophisticated gadgetry, perpetually ignorant to the skill and labor that went into the process. You will never realize that it is you who is oblivious, blissfully unaware of the world outside of your fictional reality built on prime-time fantasy and pop-rock culture.

    Finally, because we’re making generalizations, and because you have bought into this whole scientist = autistic farce promulgated by the APA (which isn’t just a legal drug cartel) let me present you with the following syllogism. Einstein and Newton, two men who permanently reshaped the known world (for the better, see if you can say that about Freud, or Pol Pot, or any other of your heroes) were retro-diagnosed with a mild form of autism called Asperger's Syndrome. As far as I know, George Bush has never publically been diagnosed with Asperger’s. And based on the fact that he won at least one popular election it can be said that his appeal to the average man makes him something of an “average” person himself. Now let’s put these labels of “autistic” and “average” aside and focus on the men, and ask ourselves whom we’d like to see reproduced in future generations. If you are still reading this then I assume you made the right choice and will encourage your daughters to marry any man labeled “autistic” by the American Psychiatric Association for he is sure to accomplish great things! If he is average, however, he is likely to alienate the entire world against his recklessness. So much for labels.


    Has it occurred to anyone that some people pursue careers in science because they are impressed by its accomplishments? That it seems an especially noble pursuit when juxtaposed next to America's other golden standard for success, which is to become rich pushing widgets on the squandering public?

    I'll grant you that Greenspun has raised one important point, which is that scientists are not rewarded in proportion to their contribution to society. But his conclusion--that men are therefore buffoons who don't understand a simple Pavlovian reward system--is way off base. I would love to have the discussion about how to build a system which rewards good science more than it exploits it. But instead I feel compelled to once again try to convince you fucking lay people that we aren't all autistic weirdos, and nerdy anti-socialites. You see, critical thinking is a practiced skill more than a chemical imbalance. I am this way because I aspire to see things more clearly, not because I am a confused simpleton who isn't allowed around pointy objects. Much like gymnasts, scientists are people who aspire for some form of perfection. Except unlike gymnasts we produce useful breakthroughs and multitasking robotic devices more than cartwheels and somersaults. Also unlike the gymnast, we are not admired for what we do, nor applauded for our effort, but rather scorned as social misfits who are too incompetent to know just how pathetic we really are.

    But we know better, Ryan, and because you missed it I'll spell it out for you. You applaud the gymnast because a backflip is obvious and clearly hard and something you can't do. But all the scientist's backflips go on inside his (maybe hers) head, so unless you follow closely you'll miss it. That makes it no less impressive, and if results matter it might even be more impressive. It takes real effort to follow and appreciate the process so it's no surprise when people choose not to do so. What bothers me is when these same people, instead of acknowledging the work they've declined instead deny it's existence and marginalize the whole process. The work of the scientist, in the oblivious observer's eyes, never exists and all that is left is a shell of a person who makes bad career choices and can't get a date on Friday night.
     Reply
    snugbug promoted this comment HobartIcarus was starred HobartIcarus was unstarred
    Image of snugbug snugbug
    09/02/09

    @HobartIcarus: "..deny it's existence": FAIL.

    /Sincerely, the Science Journal peer review panel.
     Reply
    snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred
    Image of Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate
    09/01/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    I always love it when someone comes up with a stereotype to fit the circumstances. It's so... scientific!

    Let's not mention anything about the percentage of girls encouraged toward science and math.

    Wait 10 to 20 years Phil, and see if the same numbers hold true.
     Reply
    Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate was starred Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate was unstarred
    Image of shostakobitch shostakobitch
    09/01/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    this is entirely anecdotal, but it would seem easier for women to ignore men than other women and easier still for men to ignore men. perhaps there are a lot of square-peg males out there being ignored and "gold bug variation"-ing it up. please don't castrate me.
     Reply
    shostakobitch was starred shostakobitch was unstarred
    Image of nathanst nathanst
    09/01/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    Last I checked, anyone can play at wikipedia. If this openness doesn't fortify your needs to impress a peer group, don't bitch at wikipedia.

    also science->engineering->shit getting done

    It's the opposite of a useless and unrewarding endeavor.
     Reply
    nathanst was starred nathanst was unstarred
    Image of AndPreciousLittleofThat AndPreciousLittleofThat
    09/01/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    I'd be interested what the Jezebels think about this. Aside from the nice asked-and-answered question in the headline, of course.

    And now I shall return to my life's work, hitting woodland creatures with rocks and laughing at the funny sounds they make.
     Reply
    nathanst promoted this comment AndPreciousLittleofThat was starred AndPreciousLittleofThat was unstarred
    Image of senatormayer senatormayer
    09/01/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    This whole thing is bunk for one simple reason. It assumes why someone would do something. I'm not going to medical school to impress my peers or be the top doctor or even money. I want to be a doctor because I want to help people and this interests me.
     Reply
    SidAndFinancy promoted this comment senatormayer was starred senatormayer was unstarred
    Image of SidAndFinancy SidAndFinancy
    09/01/09

    @senatormayer: That's just crazy talk there.
     Reply
    SidAndFinancy was starred SidAndFinancy was unstarred
    Image of irishflyesq irishflyesq
    09/01/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    What is the American Child Association? Is it like NAMBLA?
     Reply
    irishflyesq was starred irishflyesq was unstarred
    Image of taco-flavored-kisses taco-flavored-kisses
    09/01/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    "..and keep tropical fish as pets (98 percent of the attendees at the American Child Association convention that I last attended were male)"

    Did he mean "Chichlid Association?" Because if he didnt, this doesnt make any sense and is downright fucked up.
     Reply
    taco-flavored-kisses was starred taco-flavored-kisses was unstarred
    Image of iplaudius iplaudius
    09/01/09

    In reply to Why Is Wikipedia a Boys Club? Men Are Dumb
    Most contributors to Wikipedia are male, because many if not all of the most prolific contributors are autistic, and autism is far more prevalent in males.
     Reply
    iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred
    Image of TubOfTaft TubOfTaft
    09/01/09

    @iplaudius: Does the same apply to starred commenters on Gawker?
     Reply
    iplaudius promoted this comment TubOfTaft was starred TubOfTaft was unstarred
    Image of iplaudius iplaudius
    09/01/09

    @TubOfTaft: Just me, I fear.
     Reply
    iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.