Feminists’ manipulation of Wikipedia content

I’m a big fan of Wiki, and barely a day goes by during which I don’t consult the site on some matter. But when it comes to gender political matters, the site is highly inaccurate, due to the dire influence of feminist editors. My thanks to T for pointing me to a piece in which feminists describe and gloat about their manipulations of the site. It’s titled, ‘Chipping away at Wikipedia’s gender bias, one article at a time’.

Many Wiki pieces – including those on subjects without an obvious gender political angle, to normal people (i.e. non-feminists and anti-feminists) – have content starting with things like, ‘Feminist scholars say that…’, rather than the altogether more accurate, ‘Taxpayer-funded men-hating lying women say that…’.

Our own Wiki page is here, and I note it’s been edited recently, with a more critical tone. An excerpt:

In its election manifesto, the party identifies twenty areas in which it says that the rights of men and boys are being violated.[9] The manifesto received criticism after being revealed as quoting extensivley (sic) from Wikipedia and The Daily Mail and anti-women blogs such as “Judgybitch.com”[14]

Reference [9] leads not to our manifesto – although it would have taken only moments to include a link – but, surprisingly and pleasingly, to the ITV interview of Caroline Criado-Perez and myself, for which she received her third ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award. I assume the link will disappear shortly.

Reference (14) leads not to Janet Bloomfield’s outstanding blog – which could appear ‘anti-women’ only to deranged feminists – but to an article on J4MB.


9 thoughts on “Feminists’ manipulation of Wikipedia content

  1. I think there are 1 or 2 teachers (and probably also some academics) of this ilk. They are so sure of male bias in wiki/education/etc that they think it’s ok to counter it with some feminist bias – rather than trying to be balanced.

    One of the more persistent examples of feminist rewriting of history is the story of Rosalind Franklin and the discoverers of the chemical structure of DNA.

    MRAs don’t often think about the feminists working in science & science history but perhaps they should, since there seem to be plenty playing the “sexism” and “victim” cards for all they are worth (as we saw in the Tim Hunt fiasco).

    Anyway, feminists are basically trying to rewrite the (very interesting) history of the lead up to Crick & Watson’s 1953 papers – with a victim narrative that doesn’t seem justified. They are trying *really* hard. Having got a biased wiki article on Franklin, they went round the internet quoting it on any & every forum they could find where the 1953 discovery was being discussed. I did a search and they’d quoted the biased piece literally 1000s of times, making sure everyone knew the victim narrative. The wiki pages on Crick & particularly Watson also contain more than a trace of this effort.

    It’s quite scary the amount of work someone has put into rewriting history.

  2. I know a thing or two about Wikipedia and while you’ve done well to notice to recent changes you’ve missed some key information not to mention the most serious smear and rule violation of all/

    The changes you mention really aren’t too bad by feminist standards but I took a look at the identify of the editor who made them and found they had the following Wikipedia interests:

    Countering systemic bias (basically a feminist attempt to introduce article about totally insignificant women)

    Obliviously that set the alarms bells ringing quite furiously so I decided to examine their edits of the article more closely. The key edits are not the changes they made to the main body text, but alterations to which categories J4MB is placed in. For one thing they’ve removed you from the category “Children’s rights organisations in the United Kingdom” which is clearly totally against common sense particularly given your prioritisation of MGM as the number one issue. However, it’s gets better and their very first edit was to add J4MB to the category “misogyny”.

    So, despite the name and all your work, J4MB isn’t concerned with children at all and is just about women hating as seen by actual Wikipedia categorisations!

    To be honest I’m surprised it took feminists this long to attack and ruin the J4MB article and at least you had from April 2015 to the 31st of December without being smeared on there.

  3. Wikipedia is indispensible for general information, but well known for it’s annoying vulnerability to politcal interference.
    I trust most readers allow for this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.