#but labelling a whole minority group based on the actions of a few is silly at best and dangerous at worst

[edwardprendick1896]

BBC: *publishes title suggesting trans women are a danger to lesbians*

me, an afab lesbian:

[nightcoremoon]

there's lots of tiny brained bad takes of the far left branding things as Bad™ based solely on their association to other things or certain aspects of part of their fanbase.

this isn't to discredit the shit idiot brain fungus plaguing everyone from centrists, the moderate right, the far right, and the alt right, and even some of the moderate left, where they label everything that isn't about a Cishet White Male American Capitalist Bootlicker who's stateist, ambiguously christian/atheist, neurotypical, able-bodied, has "aryan" facial attributes, is an insufferable asshole, and the like, as "SJW garbage".

but see, prejudice and judgment is bad even if it's not motivated by minority demographic. being a rude dismissive asshole is, you know, bad. maybe making fun of a furry or whatever isn't as bad as being a racist, but you're still a fucking dickhead either way. fuck both of you but fuck the racist more. I'll punch both of you but punch the racist twice (maybe a third time for good measure). do y'all understand what I'm trying to get at here with the tiers of badness? the shades of grey? the steps down the path of evil from "kind of rude" to "literally hitler"?

bigotry is not the only bad thing in the world. yeah it's one of the worst, but you can talk about other bad things without discrediting that, which I know is next to impossible for teenagers (or people who never bothered to mentally progress from such) to comprehend.

anyway what sparked this is all the fuckin joker memes. now I went into it expecting, you know, literally taxi driver 2 followed by a silly horror movie about a clown murdering people. which is what the joker of the comics is all about. if I never watched the movie and only saw, what, the killing murray scene, the stairway dancing scene, the trailers, and joaquin phoenix sitting in a padded room and laughing, that's exactly what I'd had gotten.

but like. I fucking watched it because my dad wanted to watch it with me and he fucking loves all things batman (except Ben Affleck). and wolverine but mostly batman. he's a comic nerd. so yeah I went to watch it with him.

and it was legitimately terrifying from a purely psychological perspective. it's LITERALLY the best scary movie I've ever seen without being horror in the slightest. the acting, the writing, the score, the pacing, the cinematography, it was well put together without being a moffat level overproduced mess. it was a good movie. you're allowed to not care for it or not like it but to objectively call it a bad movie is not only a logical fallacy (eye of the beholder) but it also discredits the opinion of every single person who didn't hate it and makes you come off as a pompous fucking asshole rather than having different tastes.

it's about a guy with severe mental trauma in a bad situation trying to make the best of it and care for his family and hold down a job but he gets fucked over from literally every angle and eventually he snaps and makes a mistake and kills the misogynist rich asshats on the train. oh fuck. he could have gone to the police and said self defense and go through the court system but wait, society in gotham doesn't allow for a clean system of justice when you aren't rich. so instead he proceeds to be a major creepazoid turned murdering lunatic blaming everyone else for his own bad situation instead of the whole deal where he did stupid shit like taking a gun into a fucking children's hospital and stuck his fingers inside a child's mouth and stealing shit and falling further down the rabbit hole. until finally, he says fuck it and seeks revenge. the whole bloody mess that follows is his own fault. he chose to kill people. he chose to murder for petty reasons. he made his decisions and he suffered the consequences for it. all of the festering rotten crime in the city spawned by waynecorp's supreme negligence heralded him as a hero and so begins batman's story.

arthur fleck is not a fucking hero. he is a villain through and through. his circumstances were unfortunate but he made the wrong decisions. the world fucked him over and he said okay and retaliated. joker is exactly the fucking same as breaking bad. arthur and walter white are both evil people through their own decisions. but they were once normal people. and that's the point. the scariest monsters in the world are usually the white men angry at the world for their own shortcomings. oswald. ruby. dahmer. bundy. gein. manson. klebold and harris. white. fleck. they're all the filth stuck in the gutter of society that, if left unchecked, has deadly results.

I'm not kidding at all when I say joker was an important movie for myself personally to see exactly when I saw it. because that first half, I'm not gonna lie, it got me. the therapy didn't work and then it was taken away. he didn't eat most days because he had to support his mother. the people he worked with were dickheads, the people he commuted with were dickheads, his boss was a dickhead, people treated him like garbage on the streets. he couldn't remember the trauma inflicted on him when he was a baby but it still warped every aspect of his life. he had aspirations but lacked the skills. he was sad. alone. empty. he was suicidal. he was me.

then he started killing people and using the neighbor girl as a tulpa and I realized oh no oh god oh shit OH FUCK I need to change from this. and I did.

joker is a perfect template of how not to react to the world when it kicks in your teeth. it's a perfect template of a dark movie. just enough to sympathize with the bad guy but not enough to excuse his actions. the opposite of star wars with kylo ren. a good movie. a good character. an amazing actor. a terrible person.

if you watched joker thinking you're watching the story of the protagonist, you're right, but if you conflate protagonist with the good guy, yeah you won't like the fucking movie because it'll leave a sour taste in your mouth. you'll feel slimy. disgusting. unless you're a megadouche shitlord piece of human fucking garbage who wants to cosplay arthur fleck because he's so damn cool like walter white and eric cartman and rick sanchez and bojack horseman and tyler durden and all those FUCKING HORRIBLE LOATHESOME HUMANS TO NEVER EVER TRY TO EMULATE OR YOU ARE AN UNEMPHATIC ASSHOLE AND A MORON TO BOOT.

if you hated the movie, that's fine. you're kinda supposed to hate it. and if you loved the movie, that's fine so long as you understand what the message was. but if it's one of your favorite movies of all time ever made holy shit please go to therapy jesus christ.

still the point of this post is, discrediting the movie as a steaming pile of shit is incredibly ignorant. and as for the "good movies made by white men are only liked by other white men and are therefore bad movies" thing... if y'all can thirst over eddie brock in the trainwreck of venom and admit that the standards of good movie vs bad movie are all subjective, you're a goddamn idiot if you can't apply the same logic and reason to every movie just because some white boys like edgy clowns (even tho joker is way less edgy than pennywise but go off) in abusive relationships with harlequins. oh and assflash newshole, I'm not a white man.

I swear this bandwagoning bullshit is exactly the same mentality as "hurr durr nickelback worst band ever" even though nickelback is ripe with musical talent underneath a few pop songs that they wrote for the record label as part of their career so they can make a fuckin living BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL and also because of all the misogyny that bled its way into the music industry in the 2000s but that's a topic for another day. 'joker bad' and 'nickelback bad' are products of the same mental decay that social media wrought upon us all, inflicting mass mob mentality and incapacity for individualistic rational thought. which is exactly why there's a war between camp 'joker is bad' and 'joker is amazing' and nobody acknowledges the group in the middle that's like 'joker was good objectively but also terrible subjectively and content-wise'. polar. I could make a political statement and also say how the neoliberals and the fascists are at war while the people in the middle are caught in the crossfire and forced to fight like pawns on a chessboard, but the moderate right, dumbass centrists, pastel commies, and pockets of the moderate left, but that just throws everything into chaos.

tl;dr learn to think for yourselves omg

[thesinglesjukebox]

ARIANA GRANDE, MILEY CYRUS & LANA DEL REY - DON'T CALL ME ANGEL

[3.69]

"Independent Women Part III: No Throttle"...

Josh Buck: Absolutely not. [2]

Katie Gill: "Don't Call Me Angel" is a fun piece of movie credits music. There's nothing special here, but it's a jam of a song that would fit perfectly well in the already established oeuvre of middle-of-the-road yet totally serviceable movie tie-in songs. Two of the singers know exactly what sort of song they're in and give it the sultry, radio-friendly, sexy spin the song needs. The third is Lana Del Rey and her inclusion BAFFLES me. This is so far out of her wheelhouse that it's hilarious. Seriously, was Selena Gomez busy or something? The music video for Demi Lovato's "Confident" was practically an audition piece for this type of thing, why the heck isn't she here? [6]

Thomas Inskeep: Ariana does some Grande karaoke, Miley sounds like she'd rather be singing "I Love Rock 'n' Roll," and Lana teleports in to do another take on her breathy schtick (and brings the song to a screeching halt in the process) -- nothing about this, apart from (I imagine) someone's discussion of market share, makes any sense. There's no cohesion here. There's barely even a song. [2]

Wayne Weizhen Zhang: So, so, so cringeworthy. Ariana, Miley and Lana sound like reality music TV contestants who were forced to make a song together one week, couldn't get on the same page and ran out of time to rehearse, but had to release something anyways. Ariana is awkward and lonely on the hook, like she's waiting for help that never comes; Miley comes out of nowhere with a cloying shouted verse; and Lana is off in another world mumbling incomprehensible nonsense. Even the backing track has a nervous manic energy. If you want a good song about Charli(e)'s angels, just listen to this instead. [3]

Michael Hong: In high school, I worked on a group project where the only times we met up were when we decided upon a topic and to actually present the whole piece. Rather expectedly, the whole thing fell apart rather quickly and it was a completely embarrassing experience. "Don't Call Me Angel," gives off the same vibe, like Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Lana Del Rey were each given only the title and asked to write something vaguely empowering for women. Each artist sounds like they wrote for a different track and made absolutely no effort to meld styles, instead forcing the producers to try and mash the entire thing together. Even the chorus buries Miley and Lana completely beneath Ariana, perhaps rather wisely as I can't see the group's vocal tones meshing together very well. "Don't Call Me Angel" survives only through the one thing my group never had, natural charisma. [3]

Alex Clifton: How did Ari, Miley and Lana end up in this? I guess it echoes the three Charlie's Angels but this trio doesn't make sense. I can see how individual duets would've worked; Ari and Lana could've done something slow and spacy, Ari and Miley taking a more upbeat route, Lana and Miley singing something retro. This, sadly, doesn't play to anyone's strengths and just ends up being overproduced mush with a decent riff. If I had to pick any artist who could make this song make sense, it would be Rihanna, and the music video would be her in thirteen different outfits kicking ass. [3]

Joshua Copperman: I didn't realize how dated the Max Martin sound was until hearing "Don't Call Me Angel." Pop music is now either created with substance(s) or has substance thrust upon it. Meanwhile, the lyrics are clunkier than ever, "you know we fly/but don't call me angel" no longer endearing melodic math but shallow feminist lip service at a time when "if you feel like a girl/then you real like a girl" can sneak onto a major label record. It's the first time I can't listen to a Martin production without thinking of this unexpectedly poignant stand-up segment about Martin and Cosmopolitan. When the tropical house is so bland, further lyrics stick out more; Miley's pre-chorus ("Do I really need to say it/Do I need to say it again") is lazy, and Ari's vampire metaphors are just baffling. Lana comes out strongest, someone who seldom charts but has more cultural relevance than the former and is much hipper than the latter. Her verse is classy when Ari is unmemorable and Miley cribs from a Rihanna album reject from four years ago. "Angel", though, feels like a reject from 2013, when Miley was in her imperial phase and Ari was just breaking out from Nickelodeon -- in fact, it probably would have had Rihanna instead of Lana at that time. But no matter what trio, one thing is clear: with this lemon, you cannot make Marmalade. [3]

Katherine St Asaph: Remember, "Independent Women Part I" stopped the otherwise great song dead on the bridge to announce it was commissioned for CHARLIE'S AAAAAAANGELS, so "Don't Call Me Angel" earns points already for not doing that. It keeps its product placement to outside context, namely the fact that the song exists despite the three artists having little in common besides having stanbases and sniping at critics. The disparate styles can work together -- see the "Lady Marmalade" remake, unfairly maligned except by a few -- but here there are only anti-synergies. Miley's verse can't decide if she wants to be the track's Mya or the Pink (probably the better idea), but its bluntness also best fits the backing track. Ariana's sighed, harmonized "angel" is a great millennial R&B hook, but one that outside of an R&B song is starved for air. Lana's bridge, though a complete non-sequitur and only empowering if you squint, is also the most sonically charged thing she's done in ages; if there isn't a reason Lana Del Rey hasn't worked with Max Martin beyond "Lust for Life" (I suspect that there is), that wouldn't be the worst career direction. Everyone's part diminishes everyone else's, the exact opposite of what you need from an event single or a Charlie's Angels shine-theory ad. [5]

Jacob Sujin Kuppermann: Every big pop collab feels a little unnecessary -- pop stars work based on the idea that they're the center of the universe, and collaborations by their very nature make that seem silly. But this sounds really, really unnecessary. Two artists coming off career highs (and one coming off of "Cattitude") should at least drive some head-to-head comparison, but none of the three credited artists interact in any meaningful way. It's the Batman V. Superman of pop music -- conflict and chemistry built mostly on reputation rather than action, with nothing to defend unless you're an unabashed stan. [2]

Joshua Lu: In which Lana Del Rey learns that her reward for releasing her magnum opus is the opportunity to limp through a thank u, next reject. Ariana Grande and Miley Cyrus's voices already feel unbalanced, but Lana's mushy croons are so inapposite that they grind the song to a halt. [3]

Scott Mildenhall: It rattles along satisfyingly, but this never leaves the marks that the intermittent brass punctuation seems to signify. None of that is aided by how Del Rey, unbending in her lack of persona, has to be deployed in the manner of a guest rapper, wheeled on and off through a side door. The inability to sound at home with her collaborators in the way they do with each other is one thing, but the inability to sound anything other than lifeless in the face of them is another, and that's the precise opposite of what's called for. [6]

Will Adams: As out of place as she may seem on paper, Lana's bridge is the only point where the song becomes interesting: the key dips even more minor, and the arrangement has tangible cinematic sweep. The rest is a cluttered shamble of an Ariana Grande album cut, with her and Cyrus trading off lines with all the dubious empowerment of a Barb Wire quote. [4]

Jackie Powell: All right folks get ready for a sports metaphor, because it's coming. Ariana Grande is a bit of a ball hog on this track. What she doesn't seem to understand is if you are going to lead your team, you've got to provide the proper assist to each of your teammates. To me, saving Del Rey until the two-minute mark supports the idea that these "angels" aren't really meant to work together. I thought the purpose of this was to present a team of strong women looking to take on the world via a song that preaches empowerment for this new wave of both feminism and Charlie's Angels films. Where a point guard should pass the ball and set up her teammates on the wings (no pun intended) and under the rim, Grande instead takes all of the shots. When the mic is pointed toward Cyrus after Grande's opening hook, though, she shoots with simultaneous finesse and power, letting her head voice mix well with the potent sound in her chest. If I was reviewing the visual made to accompany "Don't Call Me Angel," Hannah Lux Davis' treatment would receive a [10]. Grande, Cyrus and Del Rey all exude a mystique, ooze sex and expel power. For a Charlie's Angels theme song, that's right on the money. But what confuses me lyrically is how the hook clearly communicates the theme, even nodding to Destiny's Child, but the verses, bar maybe Cyrus', are underwhelming. The clock-tower cowbell loop that runs through and through grabs my attention, but I think Kristen Stewart could write better poetry. [6]

[Read and comment on The Singles Jukebox]

[libr-tumbl-alternative]

Depending on your search history and interests, there is a decent chance you've come across a number of articles written and edited across Wikipedia and RationalWiki and many other MediaWiki's on the web that were curated by the infamous Oliver D Smith, aka Darryl L. Smith aka Dan Skeptic, aka Krom, aka Atlantid, aka Anglopyramidologist, aka GoblinFace and aka a huge list of sockpuppet editing accounts spread across Wikipedia, Rationalwiki, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and only Google knows what else. Oliver has been featured extensively on Wikipedia We Have a Problem primarily because he is one of my well known online stalkers and harassers I encountered while developing this case study on Wikipedia consensus building. Oliver D Smith has engaged in a four-year-long campaign to target and attack me, first as a method of editor suppression on Wikipedia, where he was working with a small group of skeptic activists, a small but influential subculture on Wikipedia, under an editing account Dan skeptic  (contribs). ‎ Dan Skeptic was actually more of a minor actor in the harassment that I received on Wikipedia during the Sheldrake wiki war in 2013, but his participation increased heavily immediately thereafter, as he was the creator of a number of other attack articles written about me, first on RationalWiki, then Encyclopedia Dramatica, then KiwiFarms. It took about two years to finally track and expose Oliver D. Smith in this case study. I wasn't even aware of his participation until I received an email from someone who proposed to me a curious and peculiar threat; delete your articles on GoblinFace/Atlantid or, as he linked to a discussion thread he created, under my real name, arguing against biological evolution in favor of creationism, he would create 500 more just like these on the internet. By these of course he meant impersonations, one of Oliver's key attack strategies on MediaWiki's against other editors he encounters and conflicts with. Oliver D. Smith was impersonating me as a creationist so, he claimed, he could add this to my RationalWiki profile which he noted, already listed me as a promoter of pseudoscience, which he inserted as well. Since combining me with either of these labels is completely removed from who I am, including what I do professionally and what I think privately, it was obvious to me that I was dealing with someone who did not have a firm grip on reality. Disturbing to experience, however, was his ability to publish his own peculiar reality, of which I was a key enemy, across MediaWiki's on the web about me, and then game those articles for peak Google performance in search. More so than any other Wikipedia or RationalWiki editor, Mr. Smith has numerous times crossed the line from online harassment to criminal levels of slander and behaviors. His actions were so extreme at one point that I filed a report with the FBI, a nonworkable path to recourse that was my only option as this individual, a resident of the UK, not the US, continued to target me on the internet. “You idiots don’t seem to realize that I made the Viharo and Jon Donnis pages here, then set up a whole load of other people and turned them against each other, as well as at Rationalwiki. I also added Viharo’s page at Rationalwiki.”  – RationalWiki editor “Krom”, one of dozens of accounts operated by the Smith brothers, to sysops at Encyclopedia Dramatica, 2016 From my experience with him, it is likely that his psychology rather than any true ideology is what guides him. His editing history spans everything from white nationalism and neo-nazi MediaWiki MetaPedia, to articles on both the paranormal and skepticism, to left-wing MediaWiki RationalWiki to articles across the web the cover ancient Egypt, pseudoscience, anti-natalism, TombRaider, and whatever ideology he needs to adapt to become accepted by one community to target another. Over two hundred Wikipedia accounts have been discovered on the Smith sock farm, some claiming to be his brother Darryl who is claiming he is responsible, then denying it, and back and forth with layers of confusion, deception all over the web, including impersonating women or other editors Oliver D Smith conflicts with. The only controversial thing I have ever done is create a Rationalwiki article on Rome Viharo. MediaWiki editor skeptic, aka Darryl L Smith, aka Oliver D Smith, defending their actions on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Oliver, in a manner virtually identical to our Twitter president, has a habitual practice of deception. This practice may be more of a result of delusion. Oliver D. Smith believes he is a white knight, a hero on the internet who attacks his foes based on his own pizzagate interpretation of reality, that is, one that is disconnected from consensual reality but relies on emotional reactions to keywords he believes he finds on the web about his targets. Once Oliver finds a keyword written on the web by his targets, he then takes that emotionally charged keyword back to online communities and attempts to build personal armies, developing an emotional and distorted consensus so these platforms will not only join in the attacks but give Oliver a safe harbor to continue them. The strategies Oliver D. Smith employs to accomplish this extend far beyond him just editing articles on various wikis around the web about his targets, they  are also entail online impersonations of other users editing accounts, which not only deflects blame from Oliver, but places blame on other users which then riles up communities against each other on the web. This was one of the factors that has contributed to it taking Wikipedia, We Have a Problem over two years to finally identify the author of significant harassment and targeting that I've received. This is how highly toxic digital wildfires and troll farms are able to build communities like PizzaGate or QAnon. Oliver D. Smith shows us how to do that too. His attacks actually show the trail these type of campaigns create on the web. Once an internet user is emotionally charged with any given keyword, they throw critical thinking skills out the window and fail to investigate the flag-waving of sources which misrepresent original context. What is curious about Oliver, however - is his ability to do this with communities that identify as skeptic activists on the internet, communities like RationalWiki and thought leaders of skeptic Wikipedia editing like Tim Farley, communities that would appear to be more critical. Oliver's abuses on the internet I believe help to expose a remarkable vulnerability of the web that all of us are more susceptible to than we are aware. Oliver is taking advantage of a flaw, deeply rooted in human nature and software design flaw. Oliver Smith always claims his innocence, and always confesses his guilt. Oliver D. Smith may be unaware of the very extreme contradictions he makes attempting to cover his tracks across MediaWikis, which are glaringly apparent to anyone who encounters him.  I never met you on Wikipedia 4 years ago, that was one of my brothers. So you targeted my whole family out of a grudge of a silly Wikipedia dispute/ban. Oliver D. Smith, in a direct email to me, on file, 2017 Because he both confesses and denies all of his activity on the web, everything Oliver D. Smith says is highly suspicious. There is no brother involved. I made it all up to mislead people stalking me, or trying to investigate who I was (this goes back to when I had trolls following me 24/7 on other websites like Encylopedia Dramatica, Kiwi Farms etc). There's plenty of other false information I fed them and I found the situation rather funny since I fooled most, or all these stalkers. Oliver D. Smith, in a direct email to me, on file, 2018 Whatever guides Oliver D Smith, whether a brother who is deeply involved with Wikipedia editing and certain skeptic activist groups or an out of balance psychology, also has a significant influence on the web via Google search, and this is the tragedy of MediaWiki software. MediaWiki software, the engine the drives Wikipedia communities and dozens of more platforms around the web, in combination with Google search, provides significant global influence via individuals like this, along with the troll farms and agenda operators who collaborate with Oliver and those like him. The other problem with MediaWiki software is there is nothing that can be done about it, at all. That is really what Wikipedia, We Have a Problem validates, the utter failure of all of these communities, platforms, institutions, and even the legal system to do anything about this significant problem. While, in principle, online misinformation, targeted harassment and manipulation can find a solution on Facebook or Twitter, on MediaWiki's - there is literally no solution available. Since the participation is small, even insignificant in comparison to harassment occurring on large platforms of users like Reddit or Twitter, this problem does not obtain much mainstream attention. Pass the buck open source architecture MediaWiki's, as developed in open source by the WikiMedia foundation, put all of the responsibility of the management of the platforms on the users who edit them. As in a legally binding contract. This includes all paths to recourse for any misinformation, slander, fake news, attacks, etc. As long as the community who participates is well-intentioned, rational, and have integrity with the principles of the platform, this isn't a problem. Unfortunately, the web is anything but that. MediaWiki's are one of the few last artifacts of the early, idealistic web -  so it is not surprising that the zeal mentioned in many early TED talks (my own included) opined on the great value of software that anyone could edit would easily overlook the social reality that occurs, a silent policy of not everyone should. Before we even address the inherent flaws of the software itself, there apparently is a very high appeal of MediaWikis by those who are on the spectrum with autism, aspergers, or social anxiety disorders. Within Wikipedia's own editing culture, Wikipedia itself is referred to as a honey pot for editors on the spectrum. Autistics can be remarkable editors who are incredibly diligent. The result of this, however, is a community that is unlikely to have much social empathy, a trait often lacking in those with the condition. This naturally exasperates the problem that MediaWikis carry with them. All MediaWiki's empower the users to restrict or police other users activities, within certain boundaries. This means the software that anyone can edit is synonymous with the software that anyone can police, and MediaWiki's give users tools which block, ban, or restrict other users participation. Therefore, MediaWiki software's core design flaw lay in how it creates competition instead of collaboration. This makes MediaWiki's even more problematic - while the software design increases user competition, the rules that govern the community usually instruct collaboration, a contradiction that makes it impossible for a community to responsibly manage itself without a high degree of social empathy. Really? Wikipedia is now being leveraged as the good cop of the internet on Facebook and YouTube, creating more tensions to the prime real estate value to agenda groups and the inherent tensions of the design. I'm all for spontaneous collaboration on the web, but if Wikipedia is the only solution Silicon Valley is offering us in defense of fake news and online misinformation, the web could be lost forever. This tension created by the design flaw in MediaWiki has created dozens of various ideological spin-offs of Wikipedia around the web, all using the same software with slight modifications, including the commercial version of MediaWiki, Wikia. Google's own search algorithm also rewards not just Wikipedia with a high ranking, but any MediaWiki platform. MediaWiki platforms are very easy to optimize for search engine results, and likely in most search returns internet users discover. Oliver D Smith, MediaWiki master. I'm vague on the details, but apparently, Oliver has finally been banned from RationalWiki. It took RationalWiki six years to finally boot him off of their platform. Six years of Oliver using RationalWiki as a platform to target anyone he considered an enemy. Six years of influence on global search results all over the world. After six years, is the web finally free of Oliver D Smith abusing media wikis and Google search? Booted from RationalWiki, Oliver found a new home on another MediaWiki fansite called RationalWiki,Wiki. Since MediaWiki's create a copy of themselves via spats within the previous community, RationalWiki now has RationalWiki, Wiki on Wikia and Oliver D Smith once again as an editor. The unique distinction in this MediaWiki is that it is Wikia, a paid advertising commercial platform MediaWiki site. Like Wikipedia and MediaWiki software, Jimbo Wales commercially successful Wikia was meant to accommodate, and commercialize, niche communities and the advertisers that want to appeal directly to them. It's Wikipedia with a business model. More than just a software platform that anyone can edit, Wikia is a MediaWiki that anyone can publish, simply by creating an account. The RationalWikiWiki is literally a fan wiki that covers all the RationalWiki articles that Oliver edited on RationalWiki, now primarily edited by Oliver who now just writes under his real name, Oliver D Smith - including a RationalWikiWiki article about himself, defending himself from his RationalWiki ban and many events detailed in this study. Oliver uses RationalWikiWiki to continue to attack all of his enemies all over again, of which Wikipedia, We Have a Problem and yours truly is uniquely featured.   And you can see that he is the sole author of this latest attack article from the editing history. Wikipedia has blocked over 200 hundred of Oliver's editing accounts, yet it is easy for him to use a fresh IP, and continue where he left off. If that doesn't work, he goes over to RationalWiki, or Encylopedia Dramatica, to continue his obsessions. Even though it took six years to finally remove him from those platforms, he has finally found a new MediaWiki home on Wikia, one that has all the benefits of a high Google search ranking, advertising dollars, and both an algorithm and a set of rules that will allow him to continue for as long as he wants. Welcome to the very real problem of MediaWiki software and the poster boy who teaches all of us developing solutions for the web all the ways these platforms can be readily abused by just about anyone, for any reason - and without any path to recourse.          . Powered by AutoBlogger.co