Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month
Welcome to this new column, which highlights awesome articles and other content created or expanded to fight systemic bias in the previous month! This first column will highlight content created in the first two months of 2016, because why the fuck not. People wrote some great stuff:
This month in systemic bias, we had to write a whole bunch of shit that should have been written forever ago and generally made the world a better place. Go read these articles and learn about some badass people.
- Christian Ramsay: a badass gardener and botanist who collected hella plants and, y’know, just contributed massive catalogues of detailed knowledge and gigantic herbaria. She’s now a good article thanks to the awesome efforts of Worm That Turned!
- Elizabeth Alexander: this lady was an ACCIDENTAL astronomer. In her regular life she was a freaking geologist who accidentally made a bigger discovery (radio waves coming from the Sun) than most of us could dream of by, like, trying our whole lives. I'll be in the corner feeling inadequate if anyone needs me.
- Angela Hartley Brodie: she only discovered aromatase inhibitors, one of the most important classes of breast cancer drugs. She only saved millions of lives. Seriously, COME ON. I can’t believe we had to write this shit in fucking 2016. Thanks to Staceydolxx for correcting this giant glaring omission.
- Mary Amdur: she discovered that inhaling sulfuric acid was bad for you. I shit you not, she got fired for discovering that. Sometimes I have very little faith in humanity. Except then I read about people like Mary fuckin' Amdur, who made a major discovery about smog and public health and persevered despite getting fired, eventually being TOTALLY vindicated, and I feel a little better.
- Kathryn Barnard: basically the Florence Nightingale of our generation, literally invented the modern isolette and discovered (DISCOVERED!) that rocking babies is good for them. And she quantified it so well that basically every hospital in the US was like “shit, we better get rocking chairs”. And we didn’t have an article on her 'til, like, yesterday. She spent her life studying parent-child bonding and early childhood development and in her spare time (hah!) founded a nonprofit and a research center. Come on, join me in the inadequacy corner. It’s cozy.
- Mary Fernández: kickass computer scientist who, in her spare time, works on helping young women enter STEM careers. Hella great combination of awesome career and awesome nonprofit work = awesome scientist.
- Dottie Thomas: the “mother of bone marrow transplantation” who didn’t have an article 'til, like, last week. She and her husband were the hematology power couple of the 20th century (words I never thought I’d say in a row) and guess who had an article? Yeah, her husband. Guess who got the Nobel Prize alone for their collaborative work? Yeah, her husband. I’m still really fucking salty about this. “Just a technician”, my ass. Add her to the long list of “women who got totally screwed out of a Nobel because they worked with their husbands/other dudes/were women”. It’s a long fucking list.
- Anita Kurmann: this one is sad. She was a cool-ass Swiss endocrinologist/researcher/surgeon (did she ever sleep?) but got hit by a truck and died. But not before she discovered how to make thyroid cells from stem cells, something people have been trying to do for DECADES.
After reading this, if you feel inspired to write something yourself, let me know. I’ll feature it next time.
- Emily Temple-Wood is a member of the Arbitration Committee and founder of WikiProject Women scientists.
Discuss this story
Leo Romero, still Infinitely Banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFD0:8D10:29E8:99D6:AF79:87EA (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please keep your language civil. I can't believe you included swear words in your headline. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
unthingingreflexive browbeating that does little to promote any real dialog. A form of negative policing in its own right.--Discott (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) :See, and I came here to say this was the most entertaining article (and some of the most impressive content work) I've seen in the Signpost in ages. It's pretty well accepted in the community that there's nothing wrong with using "naughty words" in emphatic situations, particularly when they're not directed at any humans (and Emily's aren't). This article certainly got and held my attention in a way a dry list of article names wouldn't have, and I'm not only very glad to see someone working on systemic bias content, but rather glad to see it come with a level of frank "how in the world had this not been written yet?" incredulity that matches the improbability of these articles not having been written by now if they were about the types of people history and science tend to treat more reverently (which is to say, generally, white men). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I welcome the fresh, contemporary style of this article. Most entertaining thing I've read about Wikipedia in quite a while, and makes a serious point very clearly. Fair warmed my cockles reading it, so it did. LaFolleCycliste 22:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I see it as an extreme hypocrisy when complains are all over the news that women find incivility as one of their grave troubles with wikipedia, and now here we have the title, like, "into your mugs, bitches" . Very nice of Signpost free speech. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything Ironholds said. Except I'd have been less coherent and more ranty. Thank you for putting so well and so appropriately, Keilana, and thank you for including her precise words, Gamaliel. Some of y'all tone police might want to come on into the 21st century, though — the water's nice. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Apparently tone policing is a redlink. Well there's a surprise(!)
Great article, but I too feel the headline shouldnt use swearwords. It is also hard to parse the headline, with 'this month' feeling out of place with the rest of it. These articles may have been expanded recently, but they were not all created this month. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, for fuck's sake, people will not die of hearing one goddamn bit of foul language. Excellent fucking job to those who participated in this effort. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Mike Peel on this one. While I'm glad to hear some good editing was done by the "mind-the-gap" folks, this amateurish style doesn't sit well with me. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The coarse language here was used for effect--to me, it showed the author's exasperation with the gender gap in Wikipedia coverage while keeping the article enjoyably humorous. You can say that you found it offensive or argue that it's ineffective or detrimental, but it's certainly not done casually. It might have lost you as a reader, but it might have piqued someone else's interest. wctaiwan (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I may plug something: I am looking forward to the 2016 Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (organized locally-to-me by the California College of the Arts, and hosted at the Simpson Library, 1111 8th St, San Francisco; 5 March, 2–6pm PT; see http://libraries.cca.edu/anf for more info). I've already picked an article I'm going to work on. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Title says it all. Thank you for your tireless work in closing these gaps in coverage on Wikipedia! — foxj 21:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For highlighting the articles, the women, and the problem brilliantly. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Love, love, love this. I think the swearing is correct as some of these should have been created an eon ago. Miyagawa (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is great
More of this please, both entertaining and interesting. Sam Walton (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of this is What Is (redacted)Wrong with (redacted)Wikipedia
Ms. Kurmann? Sad, yes. Notable, except in a what-might-have-been sort of way? Nope. There are probably a solid million researchers in science or engineering with her level of achievement. Most of them are invisible here. This isn't a memorial site.
Dorothy Thomas? Yup, she was just a technician...and just an editor, and just a researcher, and... She did clearly manage to assemble enough "just-as" to achieve real notabilty, but that still doesn't make her a hematologist.
Now, how Mary Amdur got skipped, that's a horse of a different redacting color. Anmccaff (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Somewhat lacking in variety
I found the invective in the title a bit bland and somewhat lacking in variety.
I have prepared a document that you are free to use to spice up any future missives.
You can find it at [ http://www.guymacon.com/flame.html ].
I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have been happy to have read an overview of great articles created last month but not in this language, thank you. I am appalled and saddened to find out this is not vandalism, nor a joke, and that people on Wikipedia find this normal. --SSneg (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Random retort roulette says: That's how they fucking talk in Chicago, insensitive clods!
is the best damn thing in the Signpost this week. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 00:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop tone policing
The complaints about swearing above are nothing short of tone policing, and should stop. Tone policing is a derailing tactic, which takes away from the very important point that women are underrepresented on Wikipedia, and suffer from both conscious and unconscious bias against them not just in how their achievements are recorded, but in how they are treated in day to day life. Tone policing is not acceptable, it privileges the complainant's comfort over the author's expression of oppression, and it acts to dismiss the very real problems identified in the article. Minxette (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorely disappointed in the choice of language here. With all the swearing going on, I was seriously expecting to read about a linguist or a sociologist who had studied the use of that sort of phrasing. --Carnildo (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is fucking superb
So ages ago, Vice magazine used to do stuff like this, and it was always sort of a litmus test for how low-brow could your packaging be and how high-brow your idealism could be. I think that this style of writing helps to identify those who discriminate against content in favor of style. Basically those who might value the superficial above the message. I'd love to see a textbook written like this. It would make 10 year olds want to read their homework. This TED talk sums it up pretty well https://www.ted.com/talks/david_pizarro_the_strange_politics_of_disgust?language=en Victor Grigas (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So many delicate flowers. How do you do it?
Specifically, those whom have apparently gone through life disliking any entertaining fare unless it is without colorful language. How do you manage without enjoying wordsmiths like Tom Robbins? How do you enjoy thoughtful comedians such as Carlin? How do your puritanical selves avoid the countless other examples of profanity-laced but worthwhile rants in existence, and how do you deal with being worse off for it? Dismissing this as not worth reading or hearing because it contains profanity is one of the more amusing ways I've seen people proudly declare their lazy wasting of brainpower. Please do not ascribe that disinterest and dismissiveness to the rest of us, as several of you have. My attention was not diverted from the message, and the language was just slang, which hardly prevented me from reading the article. Ongepotchket (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come on. This column is barely literate. It is difficult to think of anything less imaginative or creative. The repetitiveness is tired. The attempt at irony so poor that it actually represents these articles as, well, the title says it. It's neither good comedy nor tragedy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Random retort roulette says: I'll take systemic bias-fighting Emily Temple-Wood over 100 MILHIST fact checking drones any time, any place. (I kid MILHIST because I love MILHIST) -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should have been a good news story that celebrated new articles about women in STEM and inspired editors to want to write more of them (though a few of the highlighted articles are marginally notable and may have better been left out). Instead it was written by and for insiders who share a particular sociological vision, using language which could have been predicted (and may have been intended) to offend large parts of the community and turn potential supporters into opponents. The "it's just humour" excuse doesn't fly because it blatantly fails the "being funny to readers" test.
Whatever editorial process led to this appearing here this week should be re-examined because it failed mightily this time around. (And before the "you're tone policing!" arguments start, tone is specifically one of the things journalists and editors should expect to be judged on.)
Thparkth (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Systemic bias works both ways. Naturally, editors would write about topics they are more interested in. Same with readers; they read topics they are more interested in. Looking at the pageviews analysis of the articles listed, it seems that these articles have fairly low traffic other than the DYKs. Do readers actually read these articles?
Also, what about topics from non-Anglophone countries, and other races? These topics are also underrepresented. Why only women? sst✈(conjugate) 11:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is, yes these topics have comparatively less coverage, but is such coverage really needed? Do readers actually read these articles? It seems like a waste of editor resources to write articles nobody read. sst✈(conjugate) 02:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is gonna be a regular feature per ETW's comment above, why the fuck is this shit being labeled as an Op-Ed? It's fuckin' good shit, mind you, not shitty shit. (I'm particularly entertained because I was just stuck yesterday listening to a couple banned editors from En-WP yammering about bad words on wiki constituting a "Hostile Workplace Environment" and being an example of sexist "male bonding" through bad language. Which is complete horseshit, of course! So right on for this timely headline!!!) Carrite (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point being?
What was the point of this article - to shock? To inform? To entertain or perhaps to even sort the prudes from the self-acclaimed intellectuals? As it was written without humour, wit or even an attempt at satire, it merely comes across as puerile and childish. I fail to see how that is serving Wikipedia at all. I would genuinely love to know the answers to these questions because it seems an extraordinary piece of work. Giano (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not so fast
The article says "Angela Hartley Brodie: she only discovered aromatase inhibitors, one of the most important classes of breast cancer drugs. She only saved millions of lives. Seriously, COME ON. I can’t believe we had to write this shit in fucking 2016." That topic was actually started in 2007. There are similar issues with other topics like Elizabeth Alexander (astronomer) which was started in 2009. It's good that we're developing these topics and that we're also creating new articles every day too. But there's no need to beat ourselves up for not getting this all done at once. Andrew D. (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many women encourage systemic bias
So, to Nocturnalnow, I would say: your idea that women wear bras and makeup to make themselves sexually appealing to men and to somehow illegitimately manipulate society with their female wiles so they can exploit systemic bias? That's based in male-dominated society having chosen to tell itself that women are as focused on being sexual playthings as men are on perceiving women as sexual playthings. Even some early feminism bought into this, ordering women to stop doing things men find attractive because that was the only way to fight society expecting women to be attractive.
We're past that now. We, as women, and we, as a society. As a pretty standard-issue woman, one who wears underwear and makeup, let me assure you: I'm not doing it for your pleasure (nor any man's, up to and including my husband), and I'm not doing it to somehow cheat male society out of its power by "fooling it" into thinking I'm attractive. I'm not even doing it or not-doing-it to fight the patriarchy or make a point. I'm making choices about what I do with and on my body based on myself, because underwear happens to be something that makes my life more comfortable and makeup is fun as hell to use as a form of artistic expression and I enjoy being able to make myself look different ways at different times to suit my mood. I value my personal comfort and enjoyment over whether any given person-who-isn't-me thinks my grooming choices make me attractive or proper, or whether they think I'm expressing what they think I should be expressing. To speak to me and other women in a forum like this and order us to stop doing things you apparently believe we should or shouldn't be doing is to disenfranchise us further, by making sure that we know that you believe we're only here on earth for you to look at and give orders to. Please, please stop. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointless, and a bit childish
Great subject, and yes, something that needs to be written, but the language used is a bit pointless and childish. Invective is great when used sparingly to make an impact, but the overuse of it here defeats the object, detracts from the whole point of the article, and ensures that many are not going to bother reading it in full (I gave up part way down the first blurb and skim read the rest). LESS IS MORE and if the subject of article is repeated again I'll start reading again until I see the same childish use of language (unless there is a point). It's a shame, because you do the article writers (and those articles) a disservice by being so needlessly divisive. – SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am unhappy that the following comment has been removed on the most dubious of grounds. If writers of Op-Eds can't face a critical comment, then they need to think about whether to post or not. I'll point out that this comment is now made by me, not any other user, so there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to revert. If you don't like the comment below, you can open an ANI thread, but I will not put up with my comment being deleted on spurious grounds: SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]–
It's true that this list consists mostly of white women. Perhaps we can help remedy this by writing some articles about notable black women (and women of other racial minorities) so Emily has more content to celebrate for the next column. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... as it pertains to the state of Wikipedia in 2016. Taking perhaps the two most divisive topics (on wiki) and attempting to address them both in a single op-ed is a massive undertaking. Civility and gender are both hot-button items here, and Emily's attempt to make a statement on both items in a single piece certainly does give me some insight to her individual thinking. The articles chosen are good choices and I hope people will take the time to read through those items. "Shock and Awe" may be a bit cliche in this day and age, but it still tends to gather attention in a very noisy environment. I'd urge folks to think beyond the black-and-white text, and consider the things implied by this column. — Ched : ? 18:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too emotional.--Catlemur (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH): For an op-ed it was self-indulgent and childish; not thought provoking, not a parody, not healthy social disruption for a cause. Historic women's biographies are great examples of what we should be doing more for, especially encouraging editathons in Universities and schools. As an organizer of the first UK LGBT editathon, supporter of several women's editathons and a creator of many basic women scientist biographies, I find this an off-putting let down. You are trusted as the paid Wikipedian in Residence at NIOSH, I doubt this type of embarrassing chaff aligns well with the goals of that position. --Fæ (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind causal f*word in a causal conversation, but I simply could not force myself to read a text about articles about possibly awesome women, written so. There is a Russian say "a teaspoon of shit spoils a barrel of honey". - üser:Altenmann >t 03:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiki Finger Wagging
Can everyone here stumbling over themselves to serve as self-appointed finger-wagging etiquette patrol please just lighten the **** up? <-- See what I did there to make this more palatable for you folks?
None of the invectives in the piece were aimed at people or Wikipedians. Go back and check. I’ll wait here while you re-read it. Those who have met and worked with Emily know what an incredibly prolific member of the community she is. The piece reflected the passion for fixing Wikipedia’s shortcomings and the implication by critics that we all have to march in lockstep with the same style and attitude towards the task is folly. Any criticism that is essentially, “Why can’t you be more like me?” deserves a trip to the bit bucket. — Fuzheado | Talk 05:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for reporting on important work
Keilana, this is great stuff. It's an important service to the movement to report on article building and the thinking and organizing that often goes into it. I look forward to your column.
To Mike Peel et al, I would encourage you to take up editorial decisions at WT:SIGNPOST so this page can be used to engage with the substance of this article. It may be too late for that...but I hope not. -Pete (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Historical perspective and recentism
The articles highlighted here (and I am deliberately not focusing on the language used to present the topic) are good examples of how difficult it can be to write about people until there is sufficient distance to allow a proper assessment of their notability and their impact in their respective fields. Two articles stand out in this respect: Mary Fernández and Anita Kurmann. The former is someone whose career is still in progress and it is not (with the best will in the world) possible to write about them in an encyclopaedic manner until their career and achievements are further advanced. This would apply to the same kind of article written about a man and in fields other than science. The same can be said of the article about Anita Kurmann, whose career was cut short so tragically.
For the record (though the article itself should have made this clearer), some of the articles were started much earlier, though most of them were created in February 2016 (or in the case of Christian Ramsay in December 2015). The ones that were (presumably) expanded recently but had been created earlier were: Mary Amdur: created in December 2010; Angela Hartley Brodie: created in January 2007; and Elizabeth Alexander (astronomer): created in December 2009.
I'm going to add two suggestions here for articles that could be created (I had hoped to start work on these myself, but have not had time yet): we have an article on Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, but not on her husband Sergei Illarionovich Gaposchkin. They are both covered in Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science, 1789-1979 (1987). It is an example of the inversion of the more common relative notability of a husband-wife pairing. There is also Vera Fretter - an omission I highlighted back in August 2015 on Keilana's user talk page here. She is relatively obscure, but IMO it would have been better to focus on people where substantive articles are possible (i.e. where published obituaries detailing an entire career are available), rather than dilute the message by including borderline cases.
The op-ed piece would also have been improved by including some details and statistics on number of articles we currently have on female scientists, and celebrating the number that we already have and looking at how their number and quality compare with that of the articles on male scientists. Are such statistics and details available? Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He hasn't, obviously, but the crass attempts at shock tactics failed here, despite your inability to be flexible in thought. – SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, how childish: I'm not in a hole, trying to celebrate an article made divisive not by its subject matter, but by the language employed, but you carry on, missing the point entirely. – SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bye bye. – SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Douglas Adams makes the point better than I could. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
? I'm sure there's a village missing you somewhere... – SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enjoy your time in kindergarten tomorrow. – SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stopped reading this after the third gratuitous swear word. Shame because it could have been quite an interesting article. I have no idea what you thought you were doing by writing this article like this. Was it effective? Did it work? AndrewRT(Talk) 16:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A regular dose of unnecessary expletives? No thanks.
A regular column on the important subject of systemic bias and how it is being tackled would be most welcome. But unnecessary, gratuitously excessive profanity for no discernible reason whatsoever is most definitely not, especially if this is to be a regular thing. I have no desire to be sworn at at all, let alone routinely. If I see that kind of thing in The Signpost again, I will unsubscribe and avoid the publication in future. If that means I lose touch with what's going on on Wikipedia, so be it. If that results in me feeling alienated and wishing to cease my work here, again, so be it. I know the Signpost is short of volunteers but I wasn't aware that the existing editors were so short of sound judgement. Is this a plea for help in disguise? Whatever it is, it certainly distracts from the supposed subject. Serious issues like systemic bias deserve better than this puerile treatment. WaggersTALK 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny how everyone is up in arms about the title here, but when the Signpost published "Wikipedia's cute ass" it was nothing but high-5s all around. A double standard perhaps? Kaldari (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fuck 'em, keep up the good work. ---an IP editor. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Waggers: You wrote: "there's no good reason I could discern from the text. What you think the author was trying to do is just your opinion, but whatever message she was trying to communicate has been lost amidst her swearing".
I could discern a good reason from the text. And no, that is not "just my opinion", because writing an article is a form of communication. The claim that the message the author was trying to communicate was lost is demonstrably false. Just because you got distracted by the swearwords doesn't mean everyone did. WP:FLOW is a failed experiment. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Big fucking deal
It's not the cursing, it's the implication that these bios were not created because of the subjects gender. So Kelina created or fixed up a few articles about some little known scientists. Good for her I suppose, this being an encyclopedia and all. Are there hundreds or thousands left to go for both genders? Probably, but who fucking cares as long as a bunch of assholes get to pat each other on their self-righteous backs. That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are writing Signpost articles, in a manner and register suitable for the reader- and this one does stray somewhat from our implied Manual of Style. So much so- that the language has become the subject and the subject forgotten.
Would it possible, to have a synopsis removing the regionalisms so we can enjoy the substance of the message. Clem Rutter (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Radio astronomy, indeed.
According to Chief Fuck Sayer Keilana, the Senior Physicist and Head of the Operational Research Section of the Radio Development Laboratory in Wellington, New Zealand in 1942, Elizabeth Alexander (astronomer), was a key figure in the emerging radio-astronomy science. Perhaps our CFS should introduce her into the Radio astronomy article ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of tenets of many of us hasten-the-day Wikipedians, at least in my case, is that WP's administration is hopelessly broken and trapped in a rut of bush-league behavior. The fact that a WP admin thought it was ok to approve an article with this kind of language for inclusion in WP's newsletter helps prove that point. Great work, WP's leadership. Keep it up and lets see a quicker end to this shambles of a project. Cla68 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Emily, thank you for this new column, the tireless work you do for unrepresented and underrepresented communities on Wikipedia, and your courage for posting it with such fierce honesty. Jami430 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Journalism is messy
Kudos to the author and editors for drawing so much attention to this subject. Creating a huge controversy to draw attention to a subject is a time-honored tradition of journalism. In the 1874 Central Park Zoo Escape, for example, the New York Herald ran a huge false story (they disclosed it was false at the end, but few read that far before freaking out) on an escape of animals from a zoo, to really highlight problems in zoo animal handling. Hopefully this op-ed will go down in Signpost history just like that one.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is brilliant
This is absolutely fucking amazing and huge kudos to the author! It appears there's quite a few people who aren't fond of the use of profanities but honestly it was refreshing to see a piece that was written in more casual language, the harsh formal language usually found elsewhere can get hard to understand at times. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]