4 ms·

>3) In what way are they strayed far away from it? By introducing political bias into the selection and presentation of information. If I check pages on femin

>3) In what way are they strayed far away from it? By introducing political bias into the selection and presentation of information. If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. Most of the pages are generally shown benign. If I check a few pages on prominent manosphere subcultures, I don't have to scroll far before the word 'misogynist' pops up, despite the fact both cultures are fairly similar (both contain a small extremist population and a large population of idealists), and feminism having far, far more text written, both per page and across Wikipedia as a whole. Personally, I'm fairly certain spreading a few more words on the bloodlust of early feminists would shine a fairly different light on the movement without changing the ideology of the majority. It's not just information hidden away from high traffic pages, it practically doesn't exist if you don't know exactly what to look for. Yet any kind of filth is practically at the front for anything related to the countercultures. That reeks of tone setting.

wasmitnetzen 4y ago
I'm sure we all agree that Wikipedia has a ton of biases in all sorts of directions, but I'm not following that Wikimedia has anything to do with. They rarely make any editorial choices, usually only following legal decisions.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Maybe it doesn't, but a commenter further up mentioned wanting both Wikipedia and Wikimedia. So in turn, I'm not following why Wikimedia alone is the focus here. That said, it seems like a no-brainer that using a hands-off approach in a subculture known for being biased is an open invitation for articles to become biased. That doesn't mean Wikimedia is at fault, either.
pelasaco 4y ago
The Human page, is quite neutral too (/s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  Whats wrong with that blurb? The only bit missing a citation is "most societies have men over women", and that seems fairly unproblematic
  - pelasaco 4y ago
    > Whats wrong with that blurb? well, the agenda trying to be pushed. "Human societies typically exhibit gender identities and gender roles that distinguish between masculine and feminine characteristics and prescribe the range of acceptable behaviours and attitudes for their members based on their sex.".. Typically? Nope. "The most common categorisation is a gender binary of men and women.[422] Many societies recognise a third gender,[423] or less commonly a fourth or fifth.[424][425] In some other societies, non-binary is used as an umbrella term for a range of gender identities that are not solely male or female.".. Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Just some hyperbolic mischosen words right?
    - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
      > Typically? Nope. What? How is it not typical to have general men and women roles in different societies? Those roles aren't always the same but the existance of such roles is more than typical is almost ubiquitous. > Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Is the problem there the word "many"? There is a citation with the number of societies they found that have such a mention. They do say the most common is just two and its primarily associated with the sex of the person, how is the acknowledgement of cultural genders beyond that binary "an agenda"? > Just some hyperbolic mischosen words right? So you think the problem is two quantitative words (many/typically) that make certain social constructs seem more common that what you believe is fair? Is that what it boils down to?
      - pelasaco 4y ago
        "Human societies typically exhibit gender identities".. Nope, as the linked page explains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity, it started in the 60s, but until 2015, nobody heard of that. "Non-binary" didn't exist until recently. I'm not judging it, but it's for sure not typical. But to write that it is typical, is a farce. It's atypical, but exists and should be respected. > Is the problem there the word "many"? Yup, the right is "few". Few countries recognize it. From 195, 16. But again, to create a new reality to support an agenda, is wrong.
Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. So you think they missed critical information, which related to my second point, who gets to decide. Currently is unpaid moderators, so wikimedia can hardly be blamed for it. no? > I'm fairly certain spreading a few more words on the bloodlust of early feminists would shine a fairly different light on the movement without changing the ideology of the majority. But that seems to be intentionally deciding what people should believe. If you think that the ideology of early feminists is irrelevant to the larger movement but might help to turn people to your side, you're not keeping wikipedia unbiased, youre just biasing it more no? > Yet any kind of filth is practically at the front for anything related to the countercultures. What countercultures?

wasmitnetzen 4y ago

I'm sure we all agree that Wikipedia has a ton of biases in all sorts of directions, but I'm not following that Wikimedia has anything to do with. They rarely make any editorial choices, usually only following legal decisions.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Maybe it doesn't, but a commenter further up mentioned wanting both Wikipedia and Wikimedia. So in turn, I'm not following why Wikimedia alone is the focus here. That said, it seems like a no-brainer that using a hands-off approach in a subculture known for being biased is an open invitation for articles to become biased. That doesn't mean Wikimedia is at fault, either.

pelasaco 4y ago

The Human page, is quite neutral too (/s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
Whats wrong with that blurb? The only bit missing a citation is "most societies have men over women", and that seems fairly unproblematic
- pelasaco 4y ago
  > Whats wrong with that blurb? well, the agenda trying to be pushed. "Human societies typically exhibit gender identities and gender roles that distinguish between masculine and feminine characteristics and prescribe the range of acceptable behaviours and attitudes for their members based on their sex.".. Typically? Nope. "The most common categorisation is a gender binary of men and women.[422] Many societies recognise a third gender,[423] or less commonly a fourth or fifth.[424][425] In some other societies, non-binary is used as an umbrella term for a range of gender identities that are not solely male or female.".. Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Just some hyperbolic mischosen words right?
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    > Typically? Nope. What? How is it not typical to have general men and women roles in different societies? Those roles aren't always the same but the existance of such roles is more than typical is almost ubiquitous. > Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Is the problem there the word "many"? There is a citation with the number of societies they found that have such a mention. They do say the most common is just two and its primarily associated with the sex of the person, how is the acknowledgement of cultural genders beyond that binary "an agenda"? > Just some hyperbolic mischosen words right? So you think the problem is two quantitative words (many/typically) that make certain social constructs seem more common that what you believe is fair? Is that what it boils down to?
    - pelasaco 4y ago
      "Human societies typically exhibit gender identities".. Nope, as the linked page explains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity, it started in the 60s, but until 2015, nobody heard of that. "Non-binary" didn't exist until recently. I'm not judging it, but it's for sure not typical. But to write that it is typical, is a farce. It's atypical, but exists and should be respected. > Is the problem there the word "many"? Yup, the right is "few". Few countries recognize it. From 195, 16. But again, to create a new reality to support an agenda, is wrong.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

> If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. So you think they missed critical information, which related to my second point, who gets to decide. Currently is unpaid moderators, so wikimedia can hardly be blamed for it. no? > I'm fairly certain spreading a few more words on the bloodlust of early feminists would shine a fairly different light on the movement without changing the ideology of the majority. But that seems to be intentionally deciding what people should believe. If you think that the ideology of early feminists is irrelevant to the larger movement but might help to turn people to your side, you're not keeping wikipedia unbiased, youre just biasing it more no? > Yet any kind of filth is practically at the front for anything related to the countercultures. What countercultures?