interpreting the fact that a bureaucratic process that exists for the sake of diligence in not letting automated tools make ham-fisted false-positive-prone judgments hasn't yet gotten to a flagged article as an endorsement of that article's existence isn't even *good* propaganda
but maybe probably don't start from a position of reading misogynist bias into process massively overdetermined by clear non-bias factors, because that's basically just a ginned up threat and that's a shitty way to deal with people
-
-
which is not to say that asking "are there feasible ways we could tweak process to avoid creating the *appearance* of bias that some people perceived in this situation?" is unreasonable
-
I would and do make the claim that it is used disproportionately and "speedier" against minority topics because, in my WP experience, that is overwhelmingly what WP rules lawyering results in. But talking general improvement is a more palatable approach.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.