As was reported on Reaxxion just a few months ago, the #GamerGate controversy was invited onto Wikipedia by none other than Jimmy Wales himself. As the article was being written, however, it became apparent that many of the editors had an ideological bent against ethical journalism practices and were attempting to portray #GamerGate as nothing more than the usual muh-soggy-knee and harassment of females. There were many who believed that the #GamerGate Wikipedia article would forever remain in control of SJW’s, but Jimmy decided to call out the white washing and directly lobby for the removal of the biased editors.
At first, nothing happened and the #GamerGate article remained a bunch of propaganda. However, behind the scenes of Wikipedia a resolution process was quietly underway, with dedicated editors tirelessly working to present the gamers side of the story and resist being silenced. Across Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr, battles raged in the fight for Wikipedia.
Everything came to a head this past weekend when Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, also known as ArbCom, decided to topic-ban many editors not only from discussing #GamerGate, but also from any gender related issues on all of Wikipedia. The hammer came down much harder than anticipated and many hardcore feminists who counted on influential Wikipedia editors to shill the party line now found themselves ally-less. The official ruling reads:
Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
Amazing how what started as a dispute over video games has now extended to cover all of feminism. This is the unintended consequence of politicizing a topic that shouldn’t be politicized. The blowback against Wikipedia’s feminist ideologues is so harsh that I wouldn’t be surprised to see these editors quit altogether (god knows if they have anything else better to do with their time other than to follow their university brainwashing). These users were basically single-purpose editors, and it was obvious that they could not be neutral on sex-related topics.
Pathetically enough, you have the “other side” of anti-GG’s writing at the Guardian and Gawker claiming that the feminists of Wikipedia were unfairly discriminated against, while the pro-GG editors were only throwaway accounts whose bans mean nothing. However, considering that the feminists were only topic-banned and not perma-banned, what is the problem? If these feminist accounts were really interested in being good Wikicitizens, why does it matter if they cannot comment on just one particular topic in a website with thousands of topics? It’s obvious that these feminist editors weren’t interested in anything other than pushing their agenda, otherwise this ban would mean nothing to them.
The true colors of the feminist editors are clearly exposed if you visit Jimmy Wales’ talk page, where already the whining and anger is on full display from those affected by the ban. The butthurt is real:
The Arbitration Committee is probably the biggest factor to Wikipedia’s disrepute, especially towards female and LGBT editors. I said so after Sexology, I said so after Manning naming dispute, I said so after GGTF, and I’m saying it again now after Gamergate. In all four cases, people who were trying to prevent specialised POV pushing from bigots were reprimanded severely and said bigots were given free reign in their topic areas. Far from being a neutral arbiter of disputes, ArbCom, no matter who is on it, seems intent on keeping and worsening the heterosexual cisgender white male systemic point of view.
– Sceptre
If you were skeptical of just how crazy and idiotic some of these feminists are, re-read the bold in the quote above. First is the statement that no matter who is in on it, ArbCom will have a terrible hetrosexual cisgender white male POV. Of course this is a contradiction in terms, because the solution is to get rid of straight white males, is it not? And it’s not like such a thing should be hard—after all, just get more women to sign up as Wikipedia editors! The entire draw behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article, so there’s nothing stopping women from being altruistic enough to edit millions of articles, for free, right? Right!? And after they finish editing the next Wikipedia article, for free, we can expect women to go out and pay for the next man they have a date with, no doubt.
Second, what the hell is a cisgender white male? I’ve probably read more feminist literature than the average feminist (pop quiz: who is Jean Paul Sartre and why is he important to second wave feminism?), and I still can’t figure out what a cisgender white male is. The term cisgender must imply something negative to be avoided, so why not just call them cisgender and leave it at that? What difference does it make if it’s male or female?
The third and most revealing part of the above quote is just how badly feminist shills have infiltrated a website dedicated to a neutral point of view. Such shills have no place on Wikipedia. Anyone who takes the feminist ideology so seriously they need to label anyone who disagrees with them is plainly brainwashed. It’s sad that such people exist, but the world was cruel to them. Nonetheless, they are not Wikipedia editor material.
The fallout from this decision means that many Wikipedia articles, such as on Cultural Marxism, #GamerGate, and the Frankfurt School, can actually be given a fair treatment for disinterested third-parties to read and decide for themselves. This is a big victory for gamers, free speech, and anyone else who opposes fringe feminism. May today’s culture warriors continue forward emboldened by their efforts, knowing it is not in vain.
Source
I believe this is the best response to the feminists at Wikipedia getting fired. Fuck you,bitches you lose.Way to go Jimmy Wales. Jimmy,if you're reading this you know who else fucked up Wikipedia and hired the feminists thereby dragging your reputation and that of Wikipedia in the ground? Kevin Gorman that's who. You may want to fire his ass too.
No comments:
Post a Comment