3 ms·
To me, the author is simply choosing to improve articles that are related to minority causes. That's not any more edgy than me (hypothetically) focussing my edi
by fphhotchips 10y ago
To me, the author is simply choosing to improve articles that are related to minority causes. That's not any more edgy than me (hypothetically) focussing my edits on Australian history articles so that Australians are better represented on Wikipedia. That's not a nefarious goal so long as I stick to the facts, and if I don't it's highly likely that someone will fix the edit - that's the whole point of Wikipedia.
- grondilu 10y agoThere are articles about politics, and there would be no surprise if for instance articles about Marx are written mostly by Marxists. There is nothing wrong with this. But the author here is going beyond that, as she states that she edits Wikipedia for political activism, that is that she intends to propagate a political message through her edits. As long as what she writes respects the neutrality of point of view rule, it's technically OK, but the neutrality of point of view is a blurry line on Wikipedia, and this author clearly stated her intent to walk on this fuzzy line in order to propagate her political opinions.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoIt sounds like you're okay with all of the author's actual actions, but are upset that she used the word "activism."