wiki puzzle globe 750

Fighting Wikipedia Corruption & Censorship

Update: For more on how you can work around Wikipedia corruption and bullying, see Partnership with WikiMANNia.

Wikipedia has a problem. And that’s a problem that affects the whole world.

Wikipedia is now the #1 reference resource on the Internet. Whether you love this fact or hate it, it will not stop being a fact any time soon. And unfortunately, 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 problem 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.

For just one example, you should see the way they blacklist, censor, block, and vandalize the A Voice for Men page, accusing anyone who even tries to help on that page of working for AVfM, often undoing work to improve that page–work done by people we’ve never even heard of, who are just, in Wikipedia spirit, trying to help. This is clearly being done by Wikipedia editors with an axe to grind, using ever-shifting Wikilawyering to get away with erasing, reverting, and otherwise undoing the work of people who are just trying to contribute what is clearly accurate, encyclopedic information. They’ve even used the Wikipedia spam blacklist, meant to protect against spammers, and turned it into an HUAC-style blacklist instead, blocking AVfM out of pure malice; while the excuse they use is that years ago some people were inserting AVfM links inappropriately in some articles (and by the way, if we caught anyone doing that we’d ban them from AVfM forever), they have consistently refused any and all requests from any parties to remove us from the blacklist or at least add us to the whitelist on articles that are directly relevant to the prominent people who have contributed articles to A Voice for Men, or to the issues we examine. You can’t even add articles Erin Pizzey has written on A Voice for Men on Erin Pizzey’s page, or things Warren Farrell or Miles Groth have written on AVfM to their respective Wikipedia pages, because AVfM is blacklisted. We have articles written by distinguished historians, social scientists, and other academics, but their work cannot even be cited if it’s published here. Even though these people have Wikipedia entries, you can’t point readers to articles they’ve penned here. Hell, you can’t even link AVfM itself on AVfM’s own page because it’s blacklisted. We were not even allowed to type out the url of the web site, a Wikipedia editor reverted and and declared that since AVfM is blacklisted, even a non-hyperlinked reference to where to find us on the web was censored.

Even more delightfully, they reject, automatically, any objections by anyone affiliated with a site that’s been put on their McCarthyite blacklist. Indeed, when we first tried a private protest, then published a complaint about the Wikipedia censorship, the wikilawyering rationalizers used that as further proof we needed to be blacklisted: how dare we complain in public about being censored! This is still more proof we must be censored!

Can you get more Orwellian?

But let’s be clear, it’s not just AVfM: 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.

Still, as someone who’s been a Wikipedia editor for about 10 years (my first recorded edit was in 2004 I believe), I find all this shameful. Yes, Wikipedia has always been imperfect, but in the early days I never believed it would become a site dominated by ideological thugs. But that’s exactly what it’s become. Not just in the Men’s Rights arena, but in any area where people with an ideological axe to grind and the resources to quash dissent are available. The Wikipedia Feminst Project, giving students credit just for inserting their ideology all over Wikipedia, is a symptom of a larger problem: Wikipedia, a project I used to love and hold dear, can’t defend itself from those who wish to subvert it and who have the resources to quash dissent. Nor can it defend itself against anonymous users who will engage in “well-poisoning,” saying batshit stupid things pretending to represent a certain point of view to make that viewpoint look crazy and thus justify a ban on anyone else expressing those views. Apparently, that kind of sock-puppeting isn’t something Wikipedians even want to quash.

There is no point in protesting Wikipedia’s censorship on Wikipedia; indeed, gender ideologues who hate us will often go in there, pretend to be one of us, and do that exact thing to make us look bad.

No, the path to resistance to censorship is nonviolence, and creating alternative resources.

So, in the light of this ongoing censorship of men’s rights (and other) issues, and dominance by hateful Gender Feminist  dogma that’s infected Wikipedia, AVfM has been working diligently to try to combat it with other resources. The truth is, there have been numerous efforts in the English-speaking world to create alternative wikis with information and viewpoints Wikipedia censors. Most have failed to get more than a little traction. Still, we have to try.

One way you can help is with the AVfM Reference Wiki. Now that wiki is meant to contain mostly just primary research references, but you can help expand it; all you have to do is sign up here and then after you have your account go here and request permissions to add content. (Does that process sound complicated? Well it is, to prevent vandalism, and also, if you can’t figure out how to sign up for an account and then after that just go and ask for permission to add content, explaining who you are and why you want to help, well, how serious can you be?) And by the way, we aren’t just looking for people to volunteer to add information, clean up typos and grammar, etc. We’re also looking for a volunteer to actually take the lead on the AVfM Reference Wiki, making a point of monitoring it regularly, figuring out how to organize content, etc. If you’re at all interested in that, please leave a comment or drop me a note.

The AVfM Reference Wiki is, however, limited in scope: we want to keep it restricted primarily to strong fact-based, verifiable empirical information, and as free from opinions, speculations, or general debates or etiquette or whimsy. We want it to be useful for activists trying to make their case to a skeptical public, getting them information that’s hard to find elsewhere.

But what about issues like terminology, history, debates within the movement, and so on? Also, what about non-English speaking Men’s Rights Activism? We are a movement that is global and are getting involved with people who speak many languages other than English. What about them?

Well we have an alternative project on this that will be announced within the next day or two. So watch this space. In the meantime, if you think you can help on the AVfM Reference Wiki, adding to the body of scientific, fact-based, primary reference material, please follow the steps above and pitch in, we definitely need more help, including leadership help, there. And if you want to get involved in an international effort to cover more than just the dry science, and to help Men’s advocates from around the world with a general-purpose Men’s Rights Movement wiki in multiple languages, you’ll be pleased to see the upcoming announcement. So stay tuned!

Its like Bax told us 100 years ago:

When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.

Wikipedia is now bunk. Time to work around them.

Update: For more on how you can work around Wikipedia corruption and bullying, see Partnership with WikiMANNia.

About Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay has written for Huffington Post, Thought Catalog, The Moderate Voice, Honey Badger Brigade, and A Voice for Men. He is a writer and podcaster with Erin Pizzey on domestic violence, Mumia Ali on race issues, and various shows on geek culture. He encourages people to look at issues through the lens of compassion for men who deserve it, and respect for women who deserve it. He is the author of the critically-acclaimed novel Methuselah's Daughter.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Bewildered

    This is disgusting. A true Orwellian nightmare. Indeed feminism poisons everything. Grrrrrrr!

    • Ludovic Urbain

      Actually, wikipedia is fucked up even without feminism :)

  • Jesse James

    I for one enjoy free market practice. Even in communist countries, the free market had it’s way.

    They are censoring us now, because they don’t understand the history of it. They think they can’t be replaced.

    However, the saying “crying over spilt milk,” has a basis in history. In this case, they have censored their market from info they don’t approve. It may take a long time, but when it happens, they will dissapear and not be heard from again.

  • Druk

    They don’t even link to the site that the article is about…I didn’t think they’d stoop to something quite that low, damn.

  • Cylux

    Wikipedia is now bunk.

    Yup, I’d noticed myself on other issues (things of interest pertaining to gay rights) that there must have been a hidden ideological war being fought in the background, given how the content I would look up would seem to shift from supporting one position to another, where I to look up the same topic a few weeks later, which given that what I was checking should really have been part of the historical record and thus not quite as malleable as the shift would imply. Still, I suppose my university lecturers weren’t wrong in declaring that Wikipedia was not, under any circumstances, a reputable source.

    • Dean Esmay

      You can often witness a lot of the ideological bullying on the “talk” pages, which most people never look at and don’t even know is there.

      Wikipedia can be a useful source for papers and such if what you use it for is one of the sources you use for external references; that is, a Wikipedia article on a particular topic MIGHT have references near the bottom of the page which can be useful. In other words, I never cited it directly, but sometimes used it as a guide to finding reputable references elsewhere. But if the subject is controversial at all, you can’t even trust the external references, for inconvenient references might not make it to the front page.

      I have made it an unofficial policy never to link Wikipedia on anything on AVfM. I have not made that an official rule but I almost always look for references NOT on Wikipedia, to avoid giving them the traffic.

      This makes me sad years ago. 10 years ago I was a big believer in the project. I confidently said it would grow more reliable all the time. I was wrong, but not for the reasons most people think; it’s not that obvious errors will be not corrected; the reason is that groups with heavy resources will camp out on a subject and attempt to own it, squashing dissent and doubt at every opportunity. And no, NOT just in the Men’s Rights area, although that’s clearly a big one.

      • brmerrick

        The creators and owners of Wikipedia are directly to blame. They could easily have some formal or informal mode of arbitration in disputes and accusations. They could ban IPs and usernames where there is sufficient evidence of censorship. Is there any history of Wikipedia banning censors? Have they already tried this but the well-funded censors are still able to work around it?

        • Dean Esmay

          They have put in some rules and policies, yet, but they’re enforced arbitrarily by people who build little fiefdoms and, more importantly, again, groups with MONEY and RESOURCES can just bully out dissenting views with sheer numbers.

          There are several things they could do to fix at least some of this, but they likely won’t. I’ll keep my account, I’ve got ten years of edits in there, but i find the place disgusting now, and no, not just because of what they do on men’s issues, it’s that the entire place reeks of bullying.

          • Isaac T. Quill

            Keep up using the key words – Wikipedia – Bullies – Bullying – Abuse – Fiefdoms -and don’t forget the most descriptive of the most seriously abusive and controlling sysops – Netopath. They are the very embodiment of the networked sociopath.

      • John Narayan

        There is a rumor that the talk pages are going to be renamed the fight pages.

      • Dagda Mór

        Oh yeah I witnessed, and to a certain extent participated in the exact same strategies being used several years back in political campaigns. A group of a half dozen dedicated volunteers could well and truly FTSU if they knew what they were doing. 😉

      • Matt Rieckman

        I’ve always been strongly critical of Wikipedia’s practices. In fact, I use their practices of the standard of what NOT to do on the Legend of Zelda wiki I co-founded three years ago. I always get irritated when someone holds Wikipedia as the role model that all wikis ought to emulate.

        It doesn’t even have to be that controversial of topic. Their polices on notability are so horribly convoluted and contradictory that no one really understands it at all, and it pretty much gives free reign to anyone who gets a thrill out of being obstructionist. They frequently block creation of pages in the gray area of their bizarre notability standards because… why not? It’s all good fun as far as they’re concerned. They clearly enjoy doing it and are way too gleeful about stopping the creation of a new page or getting one deleted.

        I spent my entire morning reading talk page discussions, alleged “attacks” from people trying to edit men’s rights pages that weren’t doing so in a Feminist-approved manner, and their ridiculous justifications for blacklisting AVfM’s URL. They seriously sat there and pretended their justification was entirely reasonable and not remotely biased in the least. If they did that to a feminist site…. imagine the reaction they’d have. They’d of course pull the “I feel threatened” card, get it spread all over the internet, push it into larger news outlets, claim it’s proof of blatant misogyny. Which of course, will be believed.

        All the more reason for me to support WikiMANNia and the AVfM reference wiki.

        • Dean Esmay

          I hope you’ll sign up and join! Lots to be done there, and every little bit helps.

          We especially need someone to step up into a leadership role in the English-speaking group. For anyone who’s interested. You seem like you might be a natural since you have co-founded an active wiki already. :-)

          • Matt Rieckman

            I already have and have been made an administrator on the English WikiMANNia and set up an account on the reference wiki.

  • potrzebie

    The best evidence that Sue Gardner is an ideologue, is that here stated goal is to achieve a set minimum increase in the percentage of contributing authors who are female, by a certain year. This is the very definition of ideology. She says, “Every person has their crumb to bring to the table, and if they’re not at the table, we don’t get their crumb.” Sounds like airtight logic to me./sarcasm

    • plasmacutter

      “Everyone brings their crumb of information to the table. If they are not at the table, we don’t benefit from their crumb.”

      This reminds me of an exchange I once had with a misanthrope before cancelling my facebook account. They posted this quote by Rabindranath Tagore:

      “The small wisdom is like water in a glass:
      clear, transparent, pure.
      The great wisdom is like the water in the sea:
      dark, mysterious, impenetrable.”

      To which I added:
      The wisdom of crowds is like water in the sewer:

      polluted, shallow, and poisonous.

      • Bewildered

        Great analogy! In fact the ‘ wisdom of the crowds’ is being mistaken for the ‘great wisdom’

    • Isaac T. Quill

      I found it interesting when mentoring new Wiki Editors at the TeaHouse that female editors decided to leave because of the behaviour of other female editors who were ….. how can I say this tactfully ….. Bossy! They found working with male editors relatively easy – but some of the even minor control freakery bossiness was a real turn off.

  • brmerrick

    They were bunk before 2011 when Thomas James Ball burned himself to death. Type in his name, and this is what you get:

    I stopped referencing their website in any links on all future articles at that point. So, Wikipedia may be unsalvageable for now, but not wiki itself:

    The peaceful solution is the technology we all enjoy and depend upon. Oh, and ourselves.

  • ericniegel

    I don’t even bother with wikipedia anymore.

    Their rampant censoring of anything they disagree with is disgusting. MGTOW got the boot as well, even though the article’s opposition literally brought up nothing substantial enough to ban an article.

    We have bigger fish to fry anyways.

  • John Narayan

    Like to see them censor a poster and sticker campaign.

  • Graham Strouse

    Wikipedia’s political content has always been terrible. They’re a useful source when you’re trying to look up facts but they’ve always been pretty bad when it comes to politics in general and gender politics in particular.

    • Draugo

      I want to shoot myself in the head any time I happen to look at religion or atheism related pages. They tend to be far from neutral with a heavy xtian slant on every page.

  • plasmacutter

    Wikipedia’s current excuse for censoring a voice for men is they are classifying it as a “self published source”

    “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book,
    and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason,
    self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal
    websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”

  • dtobias

    I’ve been a long-time critic of Wikipedia’s attempts to silence opposition. A never-passed (but sometimes enforced anyway) policy called BADSITES banned links to sites of Wikipedia critics, deemed “harassment” by some insiders. My essay criticizing this is here:

  • garyonthenet

    I remember about 10 months ago trying to contribute to an article on Wikipedia relating to different political parties’ models of Father Rights Movement.
    They had a lefty/progressive and conservative viewpoint description, designating political demographics of the movement:

    but when I tried to add the libertarian demographic and political viewpoint of the Father’s Rights Movement, it got reversed several times by some self-officious user named Binksternet.
    He claimed that it mandatory that my changes be reversed, as I had not provided some bibliography for them. When I pointed out several other similar entries, he gave me more psychobabble, and get reversing my contributions. Why he cared so much I don’t know, but it certainly looked like an agenda.
    My additions were quite legitimate, but that was my experience with their censorship.

    My comment to him can be seen here:

    • Dagda Mór

      Binx you say…

      • plasmacutter

        Binx has also censored numerous changes i’ve made to various wikipedia pages related to gender issues while leaving much more suspect feminist sources in-place.

        • garyonthenet

          So the guy does have an agenda, and he is a repeat offender.
          The mofo. Pretends to have a legal mandate from Wikipedia, but has a ideological agenda.
          Pisses me off no end.

          Anyone care to give me a snippet of libertarian bibliography on the Men’s Rights Movement, and I will resubmit my contributions there.

          • brmerrick

            Have you tried Wendy McElroy’s writing? She calls herself a feminist libertarian, but does a lot of research into the issues of men and boys, like Christina Hoff Sommers. Some of her work is published at

          • garyonthenet

            I will check. Any links to start me off?
            I guess it would need to be something related to libertarian views on Men’s Rights.

    • Hopekuma .

      GamerGate has been taken down, yet with all the debunking of Feminist Frequency, her page is still a shining beacon of self-praise. Yeah I trust wiki to be as unbiased as my racist grandmother.

  • plasmacutter

    Heh, one of the fem-bots has now added a section to the AVFM talk page accusing AVFM and the entire MRM of trying to organize vandalism of wikipedia.

    The level of intellectual dishonesty is sad.

    • Isaac T. Quill

      I’ve just been looking at the page – not really looked before – but in the first 8 words they are not following Wiki standard – It says “A Voice for Men (often known as AVfM)” when it should say (A Voice for Men (AVfM)” – often know as is Weasle and conflicts with the masthead right side which has it right. The Psychology of that error indicates Psychological Gymnastics in an attempt to misrepresent …. in other words Fib Big Style.

      Then you have – “Its editorial slant is strongly critical of…” (SAYS WHO YOU IDIOTS – REFERENCE IT – OR REMOVE YOUR PERSONAL BIAS PRESENTED AS UNATTRIBUTED OPINION)

      Par two: “A Voice for Men has sometimes been accused of being controversial or misogynist weasels the words” – followed by a string of references that do not support the words claimed. The First Ref to New York Times does not link AVfM to partial activity – controversy or Misogyny – it says ” anti-feminist hostility” so the link has been synthesised and is not valid. … should I really go on.

      I had not grasped just how Fucked Up Bad it was and how far from Wiki Quality Standards it all has become. I’ve looked at the talk page too and it’s clear that PearlSt82 is a highly tendentious editor.

      And I’ve been looking at the blacklisting claims – talk about spurious and fallacious constructs of White Knight-errantry! I’m stopping how or I will smash a Monitor!

      • plasmacutter

        They banned the website, so they can’t reference it. I wouldn’t mind dispassionately entertaining the critics of the site. I’ve seen enough material here to also put together a case that the purported purpose of this site may not be fulfilled in some of its articles.

        Of course, again, that would require cited quotes from avfm, which they’ve black-listed. I went through the talk page and found Esmay’s original appeal of the black-listing and it’s incredibly despicable. After reading the exchange a couple times I’m absolutely convinced fem editors are responsible for the incident of abuse, otherwise they would not cling so heavily to the idea that the site should remain black-listed a full 2 years later.

        Add to that the sophistry and creative/selective use of the ill-defined “reliable source” standard, and you have evidence of systemic bias.

    • garyonthenet

      Well, I would say this article is a call to arms somewhat. I didn’t even know how bad it was at Wikipedia for AVFM, and the hypocrisy as is pointed out below. The things they claim against AVFM, they are doing themselves, and violating Wiki standards right and left.
      I might also add, it did cross my mind that for Wikipedia to officially blacklist AVFM and support the rendition w/o correction of the AVFM Wikipage, could be construed to be defamation.
      Just sayin, maybe a little hint of lawsuit might perk up their ears and correct this travesty.

      • plasmacutter

        I don’t think so. The case is tenuous in british courts, american courts would toss it out as frivolous under several sections of the bill of rights, among others sections.

  • Isaac T. Quill

    I Share Dean’s exasperation in full. What follows is not an exercise in Poe’s Law or satire. One of the primary reasons I am associated with MHRA is due to the knowledge gained of Bias, Human Rights Abuse, Psychological warfare and worse used by The Feminist Cadre operating within Wikipedia. The last Time I saw such willingness to abuse and empowered indifference involved institutional abuse against vulnerable adults and children occasioning deaths. It was Sociopathic and highly dangerous. That is not a joke.

    I’m starting a self help group for the survivors of Wiki Sysop Rape – so If anyone needs to reach out just shout. I hope the following will help those in recovery. I’m telling my story so that others may be freed by the truth of Sysop Rape in the back rooms of Wikiland. I will believe you even when others deny the reality of Sysop Rape in the service of Feminist Agendas and control freakery that exceeds the defining base lines of Psychopathy. What follows may be tongue in cheek with some back flips on the word play – but do not underestimate the seriousness of what is said. Sources are there for verification of veracity.

    “Open collaboration systems, such as Wikipedia, need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause.

    Furthermore, the community’s formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes—especially changes proposed by newer editors.”

    Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.”

    Halfaker, A.; Geiger, R. S.; Morgan, J. T.; Riedl, J. (2012). “The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline”. American Behavioral Scientist. doi:10.1177/0002764212469365. ISSN 0002-7642.

    Oh boy- the battles I have had with the cadre of Gender Fems and their White Knight Sysop Sociopaths (Not A Joke). They do collaborate in ways that enforce decline – and Dumbo Wales can’t stop them. Once they have you in their sites they will seek to cause Psychiatric Injury and any physical harm possible.

    Wiki is a Highly dysfunction technocracy which has allowed sociopaths to gain control and act within supposed civil rules that they are simply not bound by – It’s an abuser’s charter and open play gorund. The control mechanisms and the whole management(?) structure are simply not fit for purpose and highly dangerous. The structures have zero safeguard to protect against sociopathic control – and the system has been designed that way from day one, indicating either Crass Stupidity or Sociopathic Fascination with lab rats and humans doing the ratting. I do wonder at the conduct of Dumbo Wales and his motivations. He does not appear to be a fool so I’m obliged to conclude….

    It still amuses me that I was known and Wiki Barn-stared for my Civility, Human Rights Work and Originality (DE Balkanising the Balkans was the best) – as well as teaching junior editors the ropes and tricks and finding the most obscure and idiosyncratic references known to man (In Multiple Languages – Persian and Farsi references in the original Farsi to The Iranian Crown Jewels Does spring to mind) – and still I was attacked, Gang Sysop Raped and hounded out of Wiki – banned for eternity (NO Joke Read It Here)

    My Guilt was certain because I was pointing out such matters as on the rape culture page there was racial and systemic bias (to the USA) and they kept referencing lesser sources such as Blackwell “The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology” (800 pages) Vs “The Encyclopedia of Sociology” (5783 pages). The deliberate mis-citation and use of lesser sources was to falsify content and mislead.

    It also pissed them off that I found multiple academic references to both India and South Africa being assessed as Rape Cultures, whilst America was relegated to an also ran of minor significance and college feminist hysteria. Prof Upendra Baxi’s analysis of how the Indian Government used rape systemically against it’s own people as Riot Control – Gujarat Genocide – was both compelling and Internationally recognised for its exceptional academic rigour. The Dick Wolves controversy paled into insignificance, along with the 1 in 4 woozle and all manner of other poor quality blogging hysteria which was quoted with delighted abandon by college students of self evident low academic cred and feminist memeology . (I’m Not A Snob – Really)

    The Abridged Blackwell Encyclopaedia can be read – where the entry for rape culture is not even 1 full page.

    .. and of course the Full Encyclopaedia opens with “Rape culture is a concept of unknown origin and of uncertain definition; yet it has made its way into everyday vocabulary and is assumed to be commonly understood. The award-winning documentary film Rape Culture made by Margaret Lazarus in 1975 takes credit for first defining the concept.”

    Blackwell Encyclopaedia Of Sociology, 2007, Page 3791 –

    I do wonder why the Feminist Cadre and (be)Knighted Sysops objected so much to Quality Sources when Editor Bias and Advocacy Editing is not allowed only quality referencing upon the best quality independent sources?

    The Quality Blackwell reference was entered into the page as “rape culture is a concept of disputed origin and meaning…”

    This low key and highly condensed analysis caused Apoplexy and Hysteria – and, of course, it was removed, with screaming fits from certain editors (The Exorcist was pale by comparison) … and me banned for eternity just to make sure – For those interested in the psychology (Read Madness Coupled with Sysop Sociopathy) of the Wiki afflicted, the diffs can be read and

    I was also gang Sysop Raped for having the temerity to work with certain editors who were referencing racially linked rape cases in the UK, re moving bias and legal ignorance and meeting wiki standards on both references and Biography Of Loving Person (Read Protection from being sued for defamation) – and of course US editors knew so much more how The UK judicial systems work and even about UK law, that my radical ideas about truth verified by sources was just too dangerous and had to be stopped. Being an anally retentive scholastic pendent referencer is dangerous to others who lack basic skills such as dealing with reality.

    I was even attacked and accused of Wiki Lawyering when some demanded that specific UK Legal cases had to be treated as racial sex cases – so I just produced the Judge’s View that there was no Racial Aggravation – but such reality and sources could not be tolerated … and even basic maths was an issue for some Sysop Types who apparently managed major server farms globally. I do fear for the stability of the Internet given the instability shown by these system admins.

    I was accused of focusing upon only one page and being fixated over Rape Culture – and yet the analytic tools of Wiki land showed my primary editing was on pages Concerning Amnesty International –

    The Wickichecker also allows abuse as it shows the time of day that an Editor may possibly be absent from Wikiland – and once that is known those times are targeted to hold star chamber trials with rigged juries and prosecution to have you made guilty and sent into outer darkness – Accused, Tried and banished before you have even had you morning coffee.

    I was of course accused of Racism. However that didn’t stick when they realised that I was Editing Multiple pages of racial and ethnic significance from India to Mongolia and many dealing with complex sexual assault cases that required expert clarity and impeccable references – and I was doing it in at least 4 languages. Accusations of both Racism and Misogyny left some in apoplexy when I pointed to my work creating the pages around “Besharmi Morcha” which addressed Slutwalk in India and removed Systemic Bias caused by US Centric Feminist propaganda. The page does need some linguistic skills in English, Hindi, Bengali and Urdu … and only one of them is a language I speak. P^) … now that did piss them off!

    I do find it amusing that the Slutwalk page had to be edited to remove US Centric Feminist systemic bias and even mention “Besharmi Morcha” specifically. Then WASP Feminist types (White Angry Superior and Proud Of It) have hated me ever since. Of Course they are also so racist that they have not bothered to update the “Besharmi Morcha” page with 2 years of events – that is just beyond the imagination of US Centric White College Feminist Editors – Racist Ideologues of the most terrible form. They are Truly that Ignorant and self centred. (Latest Update should have been Mar 24 2014 – Kolkata – Times Of India)

    And of course one of the biggest and most contentious issues was page creation such as:

    Rape Culture (Film)
    The Woozle Effect (Which has been edited to remove as many possible sources contentious to feminists – especially Dutton 2006)

    “”Woozles are usually not simply a matter of authentic misreporting. They also reveal a desire to read into the data an a priori position that is really not there, what Bacon calls “idols of the theatre”. … All the data reporting mistakes I have found in the literature, without exception, were made in the direction of supporting feminist preconceptions.”Donald G. Dutton. Rethinking Domestic Violence. UBC Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-7748-1304-4.

    I would love to return and complete the work I was doing in direct cooperation with Amnesty International – The Media Awards – a complete referenced History from 1992 ( Sort of Like The Oscars) – but of course building a portal is dangerous work and even builds reputation wiki wide, so that had to be stopped. Some were uber unhappy that I had been asked to become a Sysop myself, by the declining number of sane one’s left. Couldn’t allow that one!

    The unfinished structure of The Amnesty Awards Portal is still there – now 2 years out of date.

    …. but as so many have learned, Feminism claims to be about equality and caring, unless of course you are from outside of the USA and Amnesty International are reporting on your rape and abuse in Foreign Lands …. especially if your a man and They Give A Journo Award for the coverage! Feminists are the worst Footlight fannies – they will trample you under foot to keep the spotlight on them by any and all means.

    Both the highly sociopathic RadFems and MadFems (Coupled with the Sociopathic Sysopic White Knights) who have managed to embed themselves within Wiki are highly dangerous and toxic – their abuses are also linked to multiple editors suffering PTSD due to the stalking, hounding and targeted cyber abuse that has occurred. In the UK police involvement has been necessary due to the nature of hate crime used. They have been hampered as the perpetrators are either anonymised or outside of Europe.

    When the Blackwell References on Rape Culture were used Soraya Chemaly ran away form the Good Men Project – the poor lamb just couldn’t cope and never dared write there again – and she has banned the reference ever being mentioned on Huffy Post! That is how high quality they are – acting as intellectual garlic and bean lights against social vampires and intellectual dilettantes of the lowest possible bottom feeding order. P^)

    That such Garlic and intellectual light is despised within Wiki shows its dysfunction and lack of any credibility. I can’t wait for the money to be gone and the servers silenced for all mankind’s benefit. Dumbo Wales and his empire of Ignorance is long over due for termination – The Show Does Not Have To Go On, and the clowns are dangerous just like in Stephen King’s IT. That book was fiction but the Wiki Clowns are truly evil and feed sociopathically and in packs.

    PS – if anyone doubts that I’m an “anally retentive scholastic pendent referencer” – check out the AVfM Wiki pages on Misandry with 113 references as I type – and I estimate another 200 + required to fully reference all content…. …. and The Woozle Effect page just Grows and Grows (160 References and Rising) … even I can’t keep up!

    PPS – I’m not autistic or on Ritalin P^)

    • plasmacutter

      This deserves to be a featured “in his own words” article.

      • Isaac T. Quill

        That’s the short version – The full version runs to 600 pages, needs 11 dimensions just to deal with the abuse vectoring over time – and multiple time machines to deal with the actual removal of edits from the historical record.

        Make Friends with WebCite and store all web content in legally admissible, court friendly, publicly accessible, police empowering format – Screen Grabs are so last Millennium.

        • plasmacutter

          I’ll definitely use it, I suggest you get typhon to use it : ).

          As for me, I stopped going to wikipedia for anything of consequence after trying to correct “economic theocracy” posted in place of real economics in various wikipedia articles and being pushed out by ideologically driven admins (mostly tools who actually believe the crap von-mises spews)

  • Dominic Blais

    feminism fascism and Zionism, you may not tell the truth about Israel either on Wikipedia, but you can talk about Palestinian genocide all day long

  • Sage Quinn

    Yeah the big feminist ideologue shitstorming onto Wikipedia. I remember looking at an article on the “firsts” in aviation or something. Of course all the notable “firsts” were accomplished by men… so the femilogues went ahead inserted a whole bunch of “first woman to do this” and “first woman to do that”. I think I stopped when I read “first female stewardess killed in a plane crash”, otherwise I’d vomit all over the keyboard. It was quite pathetic really; it reeked of the kind of consolation prize you dole out to kids to make them feel big and important.

    Bah, it’s a joke anyway. A researcher cannot ref Wikipedia and retain any kind of credibility, and submitting even an undergrad paper referencing WP will score you an F in any academic institution in the world. So a college course on “women editors in Wikipedia”, what does that tell you?

  • Roby 83

    Years ago I tried to correct feminist lies about domestic violence, adding references to the world experts. Everything got cancelled with dubious motivations. In order to see if it was censorship, with another account I added crazy feminist lies against men, with fake references (160% of women are battered, etc). This was accepted. This made it clear that wikipedia is a failed project, just like Soviet Pravda. Thereby, in some pages about topics not patrolled by feminists I wrote that feminists kill fathers in order to abduct their children: these edits are still there.

  • Tom Golden

    Indeed Dean. Good article. I have seen this first hand. Even in my area of expertise of helping people heal from trauma. Years ago I thought I would add something to that section in Wikipedia. I was thinking it was pubic service. I added a couple of paragraphs describing a particular problem with some new ideas that I had been working with and teaching to mental health professionals for a couple of years. Within a day or two of my putting them up they were gone. They were replaced with someone voicing the out-dated status quo ideas. I tried to see if I could get my writing back up but it was basically not going to work. Those who were the “editors” were dinosaurs and their ideas were the only right ones. Sounds familiar I know. At that point I said screw them. Men’s stuff is so much worse but the problem is the same. Wiki is as limited as its editors. 2nd grade editors will throw away high school work. And so it goes.

  • Ludovic Urbain

    It’s worse than that.

    When I went to Wikipedia to edit the article about MySQL to explain that it is not ACID-compliant, a scientific fact that goes against their marketing statements, my update was deleted and no attention was given to truth above all else.

    It’s the same in every user content website, including stackoverflow, and I believe the decay of those websites is simply a sign of the internet reaching maturation, i.e. the morons have access to it too, now.

    I believe the only solution to those problems is indeed to establish another kind of wikipedia / stackoverflow / content website that is focused on being truthful, accurate, and delivering value rather than pleasing its contributors with “rulers of informationland” stickers.

  • romeVIHARO

    Glad to see more word is getting out on this very real and very serious problem! Wikipedia, we have a problem – tactics of activist editors in a wiki war.

  • Ludovic Urbain

    The inaccuracies on wikipedia go much further than just feminist issues, it’s more related to the moderator culture than to any ideology specifically.

  • webleytempest

    This has actually happened to the Love-shyness wiki page that originally used to exist. It talked about Gilmartin’s book and his work. It was pretty interesting. This is a not-very-well-known condition that from what I understand, mostly only applies to men. Myself and others who of course have a personal interest in this still don’t really know why it was nominated to be deleted.

    Here’s the original URL, which will now just take you to the edit/info page as it no longer exists.

    Whether or not it has anything to do with the matter at hand, I don’t know – but it’s always made me wonder if it was an attempt to suppress it as it seemed to be a predominantly male-only issue.