Yes, yes, I know, we’re all well aware of it here. The bogus statistics on domestic violence, rape, and the wage gap are proof enough of that. All too recently, we saw a blatant attempt by feminists to censor discussions of the truth about today’s gendered state of affairs. All of this is pretty old hand to any MRA who’s been in the game long enough.
Today, however, I learned of a far more widespread, far more insidious undertaking that American feminists have been brewing for some time now. On March 15, they will be organizing a massive re-edit of Wikipedia, for the express purpose of “counteract[ing] the very white straight cis able-bodied western dude nature of the site.” No, really, that’s exactly what they said. 
Not everybody is thrilled by this. As one commenter put it, “How does Wikipedia have a ‘white straight cis able bodied western dude nature?’ Like, even a little bit? You know there isn’t this all powerful white dude running Wikipedia and getting all his views on white power carefully wedged into each article. You can’t complain of a bias when it’s edited by EVERYONE. Seriously, anyone else even ONCE read a Wikipedia article and was like, ‘wow, that was sexist/racist! It’s those damn white folk!’ That’s happened to me a total of exactly zero times.”  He of course was slammed by a White Knight who pointed out that only 15% of Wikipedia’s editors are female, with the implication that this automatically made the writing sexist.
Apparently all men are sexist, and women are incapable of sexism. His claim, of course, does not hold up under logic. I could postulate, for example, that since a vast majority of the world’s prostitutes were women, all women are prostitutes. Not only would my doing so be misogynistic, it would be downright idiotic. So why is it so much more acceptable for him to look at the men in Oval Offices and corporate boardrooms and decide as such that all men have some sort of mystical patriarchal power with which they oppress all women? This attitude, I feel I should point out, is demeaning to both men and women.
If past behavior of feminists is any indicator, it’s pretty easy to predict where this will go. The achievements of women are greatly exaggerated to serve political agendas. A case in rather recent memory is that of PFC Jessica Lynch, an American POW stationed in Iraq. Lynch, of course, was not Infantry, but a desk clerk. One detail of the “official” version of her story stated that as Iraqi insurgents were attempting to kidnap her, she was captured while shooting them as they attempted to grab her. The truth of the matter was that she was unable to fire a single shot, since her M16 was jammed with sand . This isn’t at all isolated; quite a few commentators have likened Mia Hamm to Brazilian soccer legend Pele, which is on the level of conflating the female inventor of a lubrication unit for locomotives with the male inventor of the steam engine.
There’s another more obvious, and even darker effect this will have. Any and all articles on misandry or men’s rights, or critical of feminism (no matter how objectively worded and/or researched) will be heavily edited with pejorative arguments or removed entirely. A prime example of this is the article on Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist vlogger who spends the bulk of her time focusing on video games on her YouTube channel FeministFrequency . Like most feminists, Sarkeesian isn’t too keen on letting dissenting voices through in any way, shape, or form, and instead of owning up to her mistakes, just deletes videos with them, such as her hilariously misinformed review of Bayonetta, or her dissection of five different Christmas songs, in which she claims that a man asking a woman more than once for sex, or a woman wanting to be with her boyfriend or husband, (or in other possible interpretations, son, daughter, family, or lesbian lover) is somehow oppressive to women.
Sarkeesian is in the habit of disabling ratings and viewing statistics on her videos, and comments, when not heavily moderated, are disabled. She may seem like an idiot, but she’s actually quite shrewd; when she announced her Kickstarter project, Tropes vs. Women, after spending several dozen videos lecturing to half the population what they should or should not be sexually aroused by, she left comments on it unmoderated, and took screenshots of the more abusive ones, which she posted on her blog to elicit sympathy, netting her a whopping $150,000~ in donations. She went on to give TED talks about how horribly mean people were to her for her Stalinistic behavior, and ironically enough, the first Tropes vs. Women video she posted was one discussing the concept of the Damsel in Distress. Her Wikipedia page, strangely, mentions none of the solid, noteworthy criticism she has received, not even the fact that her videos’ comment sections are reminiscent of a gulag.
It is for fear of a loss of resources that I am writing this. I strongly encourage MRAs, particularly those with computer skills, to archive those Wikipedia pages that they have found useful for discussing gender issues. Once this torrent of censorship and revisionism has passed, we will need to restore the arguments that feminists try to keep people from ever considering to their proper pages. As the toned-down protests at Janice Fiamengo’s speech demonstrated, feminists are aware that they no longer control the debate. Let’s not let them forget it.