7
8

DiscussionEditing Wikipedia (self.MensRights)

Wikipedia-Kyohyi が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]DavidByron2 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (15子コメント)

We know that wikipedia has a feminist / anti-male bias. Do you accept that, and do you accept that what you just said are "the rules" are routinely violated by wikipedia itself in encouraging feminists to create and edit ideologically?

First is, Canvassing is strongly discouraged

Or perhaps canvasing is celebrated?

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/08/19/women-contributors-still-face-hurdles-at-wikipedia/

http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/

articles and discussions related to Mens Rights are under Article Probation

But only if the content itself is not in line with feminist ideology of course. Got to keep it biased. Feminist pages are not subject to the same "scrutiny" because editing them would just be considered vandalism.

Wikipedia even encourages people to pay editors to push feminist ideology:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/06/wikistorming-colleges-offer-credit-to-corrupt-wikipedia/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/02/wikipedia-is-very-masculine-so-feminists-pledge-to-fix-it/

There's even pages on wikipedia about wikipedia's proud violation of all these "rules" you're saying apply to men's rights advocates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FemTechNet

Perhaps you'd like to address these concerns before you bullshit us some more?

[–]Wikipedia-Kyohyi[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Wikipedia has an academic bias, and a consensus bias. Any other bias'es stem from that (is bias'es even a word?). I do accept that rules are not always followed, however a tit for tat approach will not help. It only further's the battleground behavior which created the men's rights probationary sanctions in the first place.

[–]DavidByron2 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I love the way you guys argue in complete contradiction to yourselves.

Your argument is that because feminism is a "consensus" other POV should be frozen out and the NPOV should not be followed.

But at the same time you feminists argue that feminism is under-represented and so therefore it's acceptable to boost feminist editing by bribing students to edit feminist pages, to make up for wikipedia being a "boys club"

So which is it?

[–]Wikipedia-Kyohyi[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Who is this You, you are referring to? I do not, nor have I ever, claimed to be a feminist.

Well, one, men can be feminists, or at the very least pro-feminist. As such we could have a group which is feminist or pro-feminist which in turn is a "boys club". And two, NPOV means that Wikipedia records what is said in "reliable sources" (and wether a source is reliable is discussed on wikipedia, and I can provide a link to the guideline if you like) with a level of dispassion. If "reliable sources" have a POV, then that POV will be reflected on Wikipedia. The neutrality comes from the process, not the outcome. Here's a comparison, think of wikipedia like a machine that can make orange juice or apple juice. If only oranges pass the selection process to get into the machine, we can't expect an equal amount of orange juice and apple juice to be produced.

[–]notnotnotfred 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If only oranges pass the selection process to get into the machine, we can't expect an equal amount of orange juice and apple juice to be produced.

exactly! and if your machine is stated to only produce apple juice or orange juice, but you tweak your selection criteria such that any fruit that is not an orange cannot be selected, your not going to get much apple juice, so any promise that suggests the possibility of producing apple juice is false.

[–]DavidByron2 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

LOL, you're still trying to maintain that you are innocent.

we could have a group which is feminist or pro-feminist which in turn is a "boys club"

No you couldn't. The feminist complaint is about the lack of feminist ideology, not the sex of the people doing the editing (unless they are the sort that claim men cannot be feminists). So again I ask which is it? Is there so little feminism in wikipedia that you need to bribe students to add more in violation of all the rules? or is feminism so dominant that it justifies censoring any other POV?

You're ducking and diving in this thread. Trying to avoid the accusations against you. Since you're in a hostile environment that just makes you look dishonest and shifty. I would suggest you get honest about your prejudices if you want to get your message across -- whatever it is. People around here smell bullshit.

If "reliable sources" have a POV, then that POV will be reflected on Wikipedia

You just said the opposite. You just told us reliable sources for a non-feminist POV would be rejected on the grounds that feminism constitutes a "consensus". Now that's bullshit obviously, on any other topic. You don't say that the Monty Hall problem should ignore mathematics because most people come up with the wrong answer do you? Nowhere else does wikipedia say damn the facts, what do the majority of people think is true?

But that is what you said on feminist topics. Except feminism as I said (yeah another of those "fact" things) is only supported by about 20% of the population, so really you're just trying to justify prejudice by a cabal of wiki editors pushing their private ideology on everyone else and breaking the rules to do it. if you're not a feminist yourself, I have to ask why you'd support such corruption?

Again I have to ask what the heck you are here to try and do?

[–]Schadrach 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You're missing the thing about POV. It's not that sources are being selected for being feminist, it's that the majority of sources that meet the RS guidelines are feminist regardless of the RS guidelines not being explicitly profeminist. Why? Because academia and the press have a feminist bias.

[–]DavidByron2 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh I see. So "academia" told them to put up a global ban on MRA stuff regardless of how well sourced it was? And "academia" said they had to accept feminists bribing students to put feminist ideology on wikipedia?

[–]Methodius_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Except any time someone actually meets the POV guidelines with something that doesn't support feminist agenda someone swoops in and finds another reason to say it's not a good source.

Wikipedia itself has a feminist slant and is biased against anything that is against feminist ideology.

[–]QueenofDrogo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you provide examples of this? That is not my experience with Wiki. Articles that correctly reference reputable peer reviewed sources almost always stick. Blogs and YouTube videos don't. And to be honest, that's sort of how I prefer it.

[–]oneiorosgripwontstfu 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What you have at wikipedia is a group of biased editors who not only ensure that only oranges get through, but anyone offering apples is sufficiently harassed that they give up trying. That makes it worthless to call the machine anything but an orange juicer... or the site anything but a blog certain political outlooks use to make their opinions look more credible than they are.

[–]patcomen -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

think of wikipedia like a machine that can make orange juice or apple juice

This statement goes to the heart of my earlier comment that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as academic. But I will say that the statement reflects a consensus process -- yet only for those who are allowed to be selectors who are by the way looking for a predetermined outcome, either "orange juice or apple juice," not a new juice. That is, the end is already known. There is no epistemic work here even if it claims to be consensus oriented.

[–]blueoak9 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I do not, nor have I ever, claimed to be a feminist.

It is not something you claim, it is something you admit to. And in your case you are making that step unnecessary, because you are demonstrating it clearly enough.

[–]Wikipedia-Kyohyi[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Y'know I'm going to respond to this the same way I respond to this on Wikipedia. Putting people into groups into which they don't identify says more about you than it does about them. And in this case it says "I'm going to see you as an enemy no matter what you do or what you say. I've closed my eyes, my ears, and my mind."

[–]Methodius_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

People do this all the time to us. If we identify as an MRA we are automatically thrown into a group of woman-hating dudebros who want traditionalist values, are pro-life and want women back in the kitchen.

Those same people are playing the "I'm going to see you as an enemy no matter what you do or what you say" at Wikipedia. And they act that way towards anyone who does not agree with feminist ideology.

[–]blueoak9 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Putting people into groups into which they don't identify says more about you than it does about them.

Putting people into groups? Grow up.

I have the right to describe you as you present yourself.

""I'm going to see you as an enemy no matter what you do or what you say."

No, I will regard you as suspect based on what you do or say.

" I've closed my eyes, my ears, and my mind."

Oh not at all. My eyes are not closed at all. I am still reading your comments.