This is just one of many fallacious claims / half-truths that have morphed into “undeniable facts” by these disingenuous extremists.
Another one is the posthumous labelling of Madelen Berns as a “racist Antisemite”! Made even more cynical by the fact she’s no longer here to defend herself…
Congratulations on your so carefully picking apart this confusing mess of lazy plagiarisms and inaccuracy regarding the abuse of Simon Fanshawe and the real origins of LGBA: plus exposing the Alabama outfit that is propagating these falsehoods to stir up more hate.
Yes it's exhausting and a usually thankless task trying to refute false arguments -- especially when further compounded by a process of Chinese Whispers involving Wkipedia. I've found it usually takes at least five times as many words to refute an argument, as it took someone else to make it in the first place.
But your detailed refutation is worth doing: as all of us who have read it now know the real reasons for the current row about Simon Fanshawe, and the history of lazy plagiarism involved, to able to refute it ourselves when gender fantasists add it to their armory.
One could say that all you state is well known, but clearly it is worth repeating it.
The last sentence is really the cherry on top
"Once again, this highlights both the power of Wikipedia to shape social attitudes in these niche areas, and its vulnerability to groupthink, feedback loops and motivated activism, with inadequate oversight, no realistic means of correcting the record and profound real-world consequences."
I wonder if a good coder can write a script to unpick such things in the way Dave H must have spent hours doing? If not I fear for our collective judgement in this multi-election year. Truth you need to get your hat on - fast. The Kagi search engine might be a start. https://kagi.com/
In the Spectator the other day there was an article "debunking" Ada Lovelace. She was someone who always puzzled me: praised from all sides, but for what? Again, a series of half truths that get repeated or keep being fed back.
A lot of nonsense on the internet spreads exactly like this. Someone says X. X is repeated by other people acquiring reputation and eventually X become THE truth because so many people say it, even though it was nonsense to start with. How many times have we seen this happening?
This is a really good piece and worthy of wider circulation, maybe headed 'Don't trust W ikipedia'
This is just one of many fallacious claims / half-truths that have morphed into “undeniable facts” by these disingenuous extremists.
Another one is the posthumous labelling of Madelen Berns as a “racist Antisemite”! Made even more cynical by the fact she’s no longer here to defend herself…
Congratulations on your so carefully picking apart this confusing mess of lazy plagiarisms and inaccuracy regarding the abuse of Simon Fanshawe and the real origins of LGBA: plus exposing the Alabama outfit that is propagating these falsehoods to stir up more hate.
Yes it's exhausting and a usually thankless task trying to refute false arguments -- especially when further compounded by a process of Chinese Whispers involving Wkipedia. I've found it usually takes at least five times as many words to refute an argument, as it took someone else to make it in the first place.
But your detailed refutation is worth doing: as all of us who have read it now know the real reasons for the current row about Simon Fanshawe, and the history of lazy plagiarism involved, to able to refute it ourselves when gender fantasists add it to their armory.
Thanks for your scholarly article.
One could say that all you state is well known, but clearly it is worth repeating it.
The last sentence is really the cherry on top
"Once again, this highlights both the power of Wikipedia to shape social attitudes in these niche areas, and its vulnerability to groupthink, feedback loops and motivated activism, with inadequate oversight, no realistic means of correcting the record and profound real-world consequences."
I wonder if a good coder can write a script to unpick such things in the way Dave H must have spent hours doing? If not I fear for our collective judgement in this multi-election year. Truth you need to get your hat on - fast. The Kagi search engine might be a start. https://kagi.com/
In the Spectator the other day there was an article "debunking" Ada Lovelace. She was someone who always puzzled me: praised from all sides, but for what? Again, a series of half truths that get repeated or keep being fed back.
A lot of nonsense on the internet spreads exactly like this. Someone says X. X is repeated by other people acquiring reputation and eventually X become THE truth because so many people say it, even though it was nonsense to start with. How many times have we seen this happening?