MGTOW Censorship on Wikipedia?

[MgtowBrisbaneParticipant 49]

I was surprised to find there is no entry for ‘MGTOW’ on Wikipedia.

Is there feminist friendly censorship at Wikipedia?

Their policy probably is that any criticism of women or feminism in particular is ‘misogynist’.

Maybe women have complained to Wikipedia fearing a man-drought for marriage if there was a ‘MGTOW’ entry.

I’m sure someone in this forum knows the answer?

If there is censorship, I won’t be donating to Wikipedia again!

Work Less, Play More

[Everything is all we’ve gotParticipant 233]

I’m sure there was something in the past about feminists trying to change wikipedia entries to suit their agenda. If someone does make their own entry then you’ll have to make sure to keep an eye that no changes are made to it to make it look biased.

"You can suffer from a life experience, or you can learn, move on and thrive."

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22567]

Wikipedia has a policy of not creating pages on topics that start flame wars.

[MgtowBrisbaneParticipant 49]

But why is ‘Feminism’ an entry if there is such a policy?

Its a controversial topic that starts flame wars.

“Gamersgate’ is a typical example of feminism intruding into the gaming arena.

Hypocrisy

Work Less, Play More

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

wikipedia started out as open to the public for editing, but now that it’s become incredibly popular, the info on wiki is controlled by corporations.

for example, wiki articles about health and drugs are modified by big pharma comporations

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22567]

Libera, you need to start understanding politics. They have the power to say anything they want, and we don’t.

That is why many MGTOW become minimalists. We see we have no voice, no rights, and no way to change things. So, we get off the grid, and do as little to fund the grid as possible.

[The Moth Attracted to the FlameParticipant 2982]

Wikipedia is full of enablers who like to distort s~~~ on there. A bunch of lazy f~~~ers.

Faust For Science wrote:

Wikipedia has a policy of not creating pages on topics that start flame wars.

Pretty much this, and it makes sense. If you really want flame wars, check out MGTOW on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

[Spank The MisandristsParticipant 2308]

EVERYTHING mainstream is polluted by feminists, that’s a fact.

Faust For Science wrote:

Wikipedia has a policy of not creating pages on topics that start flame wars.

UNLESS, men are at the receiving end.

[MonkeyMindParticipant 5340]

It’s been tried a few times but it always gets refused.

I’m f~~~ed if i know why because they locked the Gamergate permenatly when femnazi’s were trying to rewrite the truth.

MGTOW just links to Maximum Take Off Weight which is bollocks. Google trends tries to default to the same result which makes me think that Wikipedia is sucking on the tit of some government initiative rather than being the independant body that it claims itself to be.

[Anonymous 29]

MgtowBrisbane wrote:

I was surprised to find there is no entry for ‘MGTOW’ on Wikipedia. Is there feminist friendly censorship at Wikipedia?

You will find an entry in Rational Wiki/Wikipedia. Same mob so draw your own conclusion.

[RennieParticipant]

Don’t bother putting anything of that sort in there, it will just get vandalized and or removed. Most people don’t like the idea of MGTOW and will stop at nothing to make sure no one else finds it.

[AttonParticipant]

MGTOW has yet to be cleared defined so making a Wikipedia article is rather tricky.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[AnthonyParticipant 241]

I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia for the simple fact they side with Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian regarding the GamerGate issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

That link tells you all you need to know about them. They’re lying sacks of s~~~.

[Elric GreenstoneParticipant 1637]

Wikipedia is a decent starting point for certain very, very, very basic information, but is f~~~ing awful when it comes to anything even vaguely controversial or anything else. Their information is highly distorted, and tends towards heavily MSM. Note that publicists and PR whores and the like routinely are paid to maintain certain corporatist points of view on Wikipedia, which makes it hard for actual experts or relatively objective persons to comment. They also have a bizarre, bizarre refusal to accept first-person accounts of things, which makes it in many ways an un-encyclopedia.

Probably requiring identification to modify articles, and seeking legal damages for tainted or clearly non-objective points of view would have been a better approach than what has become an all-too-accepted “reliable source” of information.

I’ve got a history degree and have read literally – no joke, it’s my love – thousands of history books in my life, I find Wikipedia mildly useful as a reminder for things. But I so often read it and go “um, no, that’s not quite right” as to be quite disturbed as to who the f~~~ is modifying it and why. My sense is it’s mainly people who are either a) paid or b) with an axe to grind.

Crowdsourcing facts and commentary anonymously is an odd idea, when you think about it.

I find them begging for money amusing. I hope they go broke. I’ve personally had only awful experiences with them, and wound up giving up writing for Wikipedia because of the level of crazy and corrupt that I had to deal with.

"You can either love women, or understand women. You can't do both. Because once you understand women, you realize that there is really nothing to love."

[JollyMisanthropeParticipant 3356]

I never trust Wikipedia, especially when doing research. Just use the works cited links below to verify if it’s bulls~~~ or not.

Quoting bogus information you found on Wikipedia in an argument just makes you look like a jackass when it’s proven false by the person you are debating.

The Children of Doom... Doom's Children. They told my lord the way to the Mountain of Power. They told him to throw down his sword and return to the Earth... Ha! Time enough for the Earth in the grave.

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

I’m always surprised when wikipedia actually DOES have the correct information! Most recently I used wiki as a subtle jab at someone who had got the definition of a word wrong (massively wrong), and I wrote “even wiki has the right definition…”

[Anonymous 11]

I’ve read so much of Wikipedia editing facts to suit agendas that I no longer use them for anything.

I’d never do anything to hurt MGTOW, but I bet if I wrote some bulls~~~ piece about MGTOWs all being Cheeto addicted, fat slobs who live in their momma’s basements where they play video games and torture kittens to death Wikipedia would put it front and center.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Damn. I just gave them some money. Never again.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Everything is all we’ve got wrote:

I’m sure there was something in the past about feminists trying to change wikipedia entries to suit their agenda. If someone does make their own entry then you’ll have to make sure to keep an eye that no changes are made to it to make it look biased.

Yup. See Gamergate.

[Anonymous 0]

No need to use Wikipedia for the MGTOW Stuff when there is an entire Wiki about it

http://en.wikimannia.org/WikiMANNia:Main_Page

[Author]

Posts