alexrpt
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Winston Churchill was quoted as saying, “History is written by the victors.”
Today, most everyone references Wikipedia as the go to source for facts and figures. Wikipedia is the number one resource for fact finders on the Internet, which is why information control of Wikipedia has become critical towards shaping our world’s history in the digital age.
The importance of Wikipedia has not been lost on the Feminist lobby, which many consider the strongest, most influential group in western society. Those very feminists are now attacking Wikipedia and historical fact aiming to reshape and rewrite the significance of women and the insignificance of men.
Remember Winston Churchill’s quote above, and we can begin to see that Wikipedia’s open source editing model coupled with a very powerful feminist lobby, lends itself to a perfect formula of misinformation agenda of what was once confirmed historical fact.
A Voice for Men editorial writes:
…in recent years numerous groups with resources and willpower have emerged to tromp minority voices on Wikipedia, a problem which has only worsened with time.
It used to be that with Wikipedia, all you had to worry about were errors written by people who didn’t know what they were talking about. Nowadays you don’t just have to contend with mistakes on Wikipedia, though. You also have to contend with overt censorship, bullying, and ideological thuggery–all of it invisible on the front pages of Wikipedia, but which can be seen on Talk, Revision, and Blacklist pages all over Wikipedia, by the people who control what the general public sees on the front pages.
While this rarely happens on noncontroversial issues (you can for example probably trust Wikipedia to tell you accurately what actor appeared in a film), if an area is remotely controversial and one side of an argument has financial and human resources the other side does not, the censorship becomes undeniable.
One of the areas where this is an acute problems is Wikipedia’s grossly discriminatory practices on men’s rights issues; they tromp the Men’s Human Rights perspective whenever possible, while bending over backwards to accommodate Gender Feminist ideologues. These feminist ideologues frequently and often hatefully tromp dissent and insert gynocentric gender ideology all over Wikipedia, poisoning much of Wikipedia‘s content.
Lots of the censorship that is taking place on Wikipedia is in the form of blacklisting Men’s Rights sites from contributing to Wikipedia content while green lighting Women’s Rights site contributions as reference fact.
A Voice for Men has been a victim of the black listing, citing the censorship of their editing as Orwellian. But censorship does not stop at A Voice for Men, other Men’s Rights sites and portals are actively being banned from participating in Wikipedia’s editing and contribution process.
These Wikipedian ideologues who abuse their power (like those who run the Wikipedia Feminist Task Force) also often harass those who try to run the Men’s Rights Portal, having kept the Men’s Rights portal on probation for years, jumping on any excuse to portray anyone friendly to the movement as violent, dangerous, harassing, threatening, and so on. It’s to the point where most Wikipedians interested in the subject of men’s human rights just give up. Even adding prominent and important sites like Anti-Misandry, The Spearhead, Toy Soldiers, and other important sites will run you into static–although, quelle surprise, the Good Men Project and other feminist web sites with much less traffic and prominence than AVfM get a free pass all over Wikipedia. Even notorious discredited faux-journalist Dave Futrelle’s site isn’t blacklisted, despite his multiple documented cases of journalistic dishonesty, quoting people out of context, spinning their words, outright lying, and other hatemongering.
Feminist leaning news site, The Washington Post sees things a bit differently than A Voice for Men…
A Voice for Men, the controversial men’s rights Web site, sees feminist conspiracies in many unassuming places: college stadiums, women’s shelters, hospital delivery rooms.
But on Saturday, AVfM managing editor Dean Esmay published an essay decrying “censorship” and “misandry” on a new platform: Wikipedia, that sum of all human knowledge, where Esmay says editors “infected” by a “hateful Gender Feminist dogma” have conspired to silence him and other members of his movement.
Granted, Esmay’s movement is pretty controversial. AVfM advocates, among other charming things, for the abolition of marriage, the death of chivalry, and “an end to rape and DV [domestic violence] hysteria.” But even if you find those beliefs distasteful, Esmay’s accusations raise some very important questions about who gets a voice on Wikipedia, and how that voice echoes on the wider Internet. After all, Wikipedia is (famously!) the only reference that anyone can edit — and edit anonymously. But it’s a self-moderating system. It’s open to the biases of its writers and editors.
And so men vs women in the digital information age, and the battleground is Wikipedia. Let’s hope that Wikipedia can rise above lobby groups and power politics and continue to build an encyclopedia based on historical fact.
Until then, everyone should use Wikipedia as just one of many sources available on the Internet. Truth needs to be search for and in today’s information age, the truth is out there, you just need to actively look for it.
References:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.