Notices by Gadfly (-booq-) (gaditb@icosahedron.website), page 3

@halcy Very Loud Video File Format

@velartrill My life's mission is to enforce the proper awareness and respect for specifically sentence four of 4 U.S. Code § 8. Respect for flag (j).

@gdkar sweetgreen is made of this
who am I to disagree

@onethousandtwentyfour Unicode can't triforce

@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.

@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.

Unrelated to the OP: I wonder what the result would be trying to reproduce the same analyses of this paper with 2019 Twitter.

The paper was published January, 2010, so we're just now approaching its 10-year anniversary, and it might be fun...

Bibliography:

danah boyd, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan. 2010. Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '10). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 1-10. DOI=10.1109/HICSS.2010.412

Excuse you, but TWITTER USERS invented the retweet.

You just wrote the code, and thought probably less about it than half of them.
Don't try to claim credit while now expressing remorse that you didn't make any effort at all to consider the implications before canonizing the act.
You did NOTHING.
(And now you feel bad about it. Boo. hoo.)

@monorail ... wait, is it not a common thing?
I can't remember where I learned it (which isn't particularly revealing -- I can't remember a LOT of things), so I assumed it was a common enough thing that it would at least be somewhere.
Huh.

@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.)

@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.

LB: Still one of my best posts ever.

@gdkar wherebrush

Like my GOD, you're gonna fricking CHILDREN'S CRUSADE people pushing that stuff if you try this! And that's not even the worst likely scenario!

my therapist: "Horrifyingly (and if taken seriously harmfully) ill-considered left-of-center utopian visions aren't real. They can't hurt you."

Horrifyingly ill-considered left-of-center utopian visions: "Okay so my vision of a future is, The hypothetical way we can overthrow a hypothetical future Everyone Must Conform To Ideal Citizen Behavior totalitarian-right regime
is by blindly surrendering our bodies and minds to a queer-friendly god-AI."