Wikipedia Pleading for Female Contributors Without Success

by W.F. Price on January 31, 2011

The NY Times has just come out with an article bemoaning the fact that women comprise just 13% of it’s hundreds of thousands of contributors. That’s actually more than I’d expect, but if one counted all contributions rather than contributors, those made by women probably fall well under the 10% mark.

According to article author Noam Cohen, if one takes a close look at Wikipedia, a sinister bias emerges…

A topic generally restricted to teenage girls, like friendship bracelets, can seem short at four paragraphs when compared with lengthy articles on something boys might favor, like, toy soldiers or baseball cards, whose voluminous entry includes a detailed chronological history of the subject.

Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs. And consider the disparity between two popular series on HBO: The entry on “Sex and the City” includes only a brief summary of every episode, sometimes two or three sentences; the one on “The Sopranos” includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode.

A Harvard academic, Joseph Reagle, says that the problem is that Wikipedia is too open — even going so far as to allow misogynists to contribute!

But because of its early contributors Wikipedia shares many characteristics with the hard-driving hacker crowd, says Joseph Reagle, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. This includes an ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women.

“It is ironic,” he said, “because I like these things — freedom, openness, egalitarian ideas — but I think to some extent they are compounding and hiding problems you might find in the real world.”

Adopting openness means being “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,” he said, “so you have to have a huge argument about whether there is the problem.” Mr. Reagle is also the author of “Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia.”

So Mr. Reagle’s solution, I suppose, would be to establish a Harvard “diversity” board and filter submissions by sex, race, religion, what have you, while censoring non-PC entries. I’m sure this terrible idea may give him wet dreams, but it won’t work.

There’s a reason women don’t generally contribute to Wikipedia, and it has little to do with sexism, “culture,” or lack of rules. The reason is, simply, that they don’t care. That’s right, it may be amazing to some people, but the overwhelming majority of women simply couldn’t care less about an online encyclopedia. Add to that the fact that contributors don’t get paid, and why in the world would a Western woman want to waste her time editing articles on Wikipedia when she could be chatting with her friends about all the various boyfriends drifting in and out of their lives?

If you want to see what women are interested in, visit Jezebel and take a look at the articles. The overwhelming majority of articles are about celebrities and fashion. Fashion and fame are transient; they change with the seasons and are forgotten as quickly as they move on from one thing to the next. A Wikipedia for women would not be a fairly static collection of facts, but a flickering panoply of constantly changing images, never the same for more than a moment.

That feminists are going after something that comprises the altruistic efforts of many thousands of people, most of whom are never compensated by any means other than the pride of accomplishment, exposes them for the ungrateful wretches they are. When society’s elites disparage impressive, beneficial efforts such as Wikipedia (for all its faults, it is certainly impressive and helpful) simply because the people good enough to put it together make our diversicrats look bad, it says very clearly that the wrong people are in charge of this country and its institutions.

However, there may be some hope. Sue Gardner of the Wikimedia foundation, the NGO that runs Wikipedia, is taking a soft approach to encouraging women to contribute. In a reference to the many, many men who contribute and clearly know how the field is tilted against them in the greater society, she says: “Gender is a huge hot-button issue for lots of people who feel strongly about it. I am not interested in triggering those strong feelings.”

Yes, Ms. Gardner. Many of us feel strongly about the bully crew of feminists and their elitist enablers. Put them in charge and you’ll wreck Wikipedia as sure as day fades to night.

{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }

T.N.Toluene January 31, 2011 at 15:09

Why would an American woman contribute free work to Wikipedia when she’s busy giving away sex for free?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 80 Thumb down 22
Clarence January 31, 2011 at 15:17

Yep.

The women who work on Wikipedia deserve credit and respect.
But, let’s face it, this impressive free encyclopaedia is overwhelmingly a MALE project and there’s nothing wrong with admitting and being proud of that fact.
There’s no fame or money to be had in being a Wikipedia editor, which is, partly I guess why most women don’t give a crap about it. But it’s very useful and wonderful in some ways so its supposed to be all the fault of those evil men that women’ aren’t contributing their 51 percent or something and that its not focused more on fashion and less on science or other “geeky” (read “icky” for the vast majority of females) subjects. We men get blamed for all the goddamn problems in this world, and now even an ANONYMOUS VOLUNTEER effort is being disparaged because it manages to do some good without a dominance of estrogen.

Whiny fucking little trollops.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 110 Thumb down 10
SingleDad January 31, 2011 at 15:17

If put in the hands of feminists, and I have no doubt it will be, to ask the question is to answer it, IMO, the wreck of Wikipedia will occur as quickly as day fades to night.

Ah, life in the matriachry, where ignorance is a virtue.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 6
Clarence January 31, 2011 at 15:19

Previous I meant WITHOUT a dominance of estrogen.

And according to feminist and female chauvinists that should be freaking impossible. We all “know” how brutish and useless men will be if there aren’t enough women around to keep them in check.

Fuck them all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 8
Denis January 31, 2011 at 15:24

Deja vu, I just read that article.

It makes me happy to know that men are dominating the internet and women have absolutely no excuses.

What are they going to do? Silence men to ensure equal representation?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 16
TFH January 31, 2011 at 15:29

Folks, today is the last day in which my sitemeter will have all the traffic accumulated since The Misandry Bubble went live on 1/1/2010 :

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s23futurist&r=33

While not all traffic since then is due to that article, it has been most of it, and thus it is safe to say that The Misandry Bubble got about 220,000 visits.

Just wanted to get some eye-witnesses to the claim that the article got ~220,000 visits in the first 13 months.

Actually, the flow is still going strong.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 2
TFH January 31, 2011 at 15:33

I am surprised that there is not yet a government program to pay salaries to women in order to feminize wikipedia.

Of course, when that happens, a newer, better encyclopedia will start up, and attract all of the people who really care about it.

“open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,”

That this person has a faculty position at a university that was once considered a bastion of learning, is a sign of how rotten things are.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 69 Thumb down 5
TFH January 31, 2011 at 15:42

Can’t we send Joseph Reagle tons of emails that inform him of the existence of The Spearhead?

If he reacts, anything he does would almost certainly benefit us. If he becomes a new ‘manboobz’, that is not a bad thing for us.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 4
Rebel January 31, 2011 at 15:46

We’ll have to keep an eye on minorities: they are not contributing enough either.

Maybe men should be forced to publish under female names, I dunno.

What if men started yet another enclyclo., specifically for men, would there need to be a female half? Or two thirds?

What if women started their own feminine encyclopedia, would there be a law to ensure males participate in equal number?

Aren’t women fed up being treated like spoiled children?
Will they ever grow up?

This is seriously becoming tiring. I’m fed up pulling leeches!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 3
TFH January 31, 2011 at 15:50

Here is Joseph Reagle’s page, with his email address :
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jreagle

Send him a POLITE email informing him about The Spearhead, calling it a website promoting gender fairness (which it is, in fact).

If he flips out and brings more visibility here, that can’t hurt.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
zyk0s January 31, 2011 at 15:52

How can he say misogynists are tolerated, with a straight face, when any page related to feminism is safely guarded by an army of ideologues. Not only those pages, but the ones having to do with Men’s Rights as well. Try removing the slanders on the MRM from pages like the Polytechnique shooting, you’ll know what I mean.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 2
Herbal Essence January 31, 2011 at 15:53

Let’s see.
A successful Wikipedia contributor must demonstrate effectiveness in:
Logic
Reason
Research
Truth-Telling
Grammar and Spelling
Solid understanding of difficult subject matter
Basic understanding of code.

Gee, I can’t FATHOM why women don’t participate much…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 90 Thumb down 6
W.F. Price January 31, 2011 at 16:01

Here is Joseph Reagle’s page, with his email address :
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jreagle

Send him a POLITE email informing him about The Spearhead, calling it a website promoting gender fairness (which it is, in fact).

If he flips out and brings more visibility here, that can’t hurt.

-TFH

Yeah, TFH, usually I advise people to be polite, but when it comes to scum like Reagle I advise no such thing. Genderist professors at ivy leagues are about the lowest slime we have in this country, and we don’t owe them any more than the same treatment an ordinary guy gets when his wife decides to screw him in a divorce by making up stories about DV or child abuse.

In other words, I’d be absolutely thrilled to see Dr. Reagle have a gun shoved in his face, cuffed, interrogated and thrown in jail. Oh, I’d like to see him thrown out on his ass in the street without due process, too, and then have his bank accounts seized by the state with an expedited process of garnishment.

post-modern devil January 31, 2011 at 16:10

I have a bone to pick with this phrase W.F. Price:

When society’s elites disparage impressive, beneficial efforts such as Wikipedia (for all its faults, it is certainly impressive and helpful) simply because the people good enough to put it together make our diversicrats look bad, it says very clearly that the wrong people are in charge of this country and its institutions.

Social elite my ass. The fact that these idiots are complaining about something so aribtrary as the gender composition of a website’s contributers seriously cuts into the idea that they are anything resembling “elite”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4
post-modern devil January 31, 2011 at 16:15

Yeah, TFH, usually I advise people to be polite, but when it comes to scum like Reagle I advise no such thing. Genderist professors at ivy leagues are about the lowest slime we have in this country, and we don’t owe them any more than the same treatment an ordinary guy gets when his wife decides to screw him in a divorce by making up stories about DV or child abuse.

In other words, I’d be absolutely thrilled to see Dr. Reagle have a gun shoved in his face, cuffed, interrogated and thrown in jail. Oh, I’d like to see him thrown out on his ass in the street without due process, too, and then have his bank accounts seized by the state with an expedited process of garnishment.

To be fair welmer, this guy probably beleive the **** he’s been indoctrinated to beleive about women and is probably the most mangina of manginas imanigable to complain about something like this. The idiot will probably get married and have his wife screw him in the divorce courts when she inevitably gets disatisfied with her eunich husband.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
Kaz January 31, 2011 at 16:36

It also doesn’t help that female dominated spheres are entirely void of any depth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
SingleDad January 31, 2011 at 16:58

@ PM Devil

Did you go to his web site? Either his wife or husband will have a field day using his own arguments against him.

Then he will come here with user name like “AcademicAnarchist” or some such.

We, will help him because we have honor and don’t kick a man when he’s down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
ReaderLon January 31, 2011 at 17:09

Google often corrects a search phrase or suggests a better search phrase very close to the given one based on the webpage statistics: like “she discovers” it was suggested “he discovers” http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-05-24-n36.html. There a few good select women who care but it is a minority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Paradoxotaur January 31, 2011 at 17:10

Does The Spearhead take nominations for Herb of The Year?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
ReaderLon January 31, 2011 at 17:14

How comes women always need encouragement for something when it is obvious they do not care. How about government funding for men to encourage their interest for fashion? :D

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
TFH January 31, 2011 at 17:21

How comes women always need encouragement for something when it is obvious they do not care. How about government funding for men to encourage their interest for fashion?

Because it is easier to bribe a woman to get her vote (sort of like giving a candybar to a child, in return for his parents’ credit card).

The votes of men cannot be bought so easily. The only way to make a man productive is to give him a good reason to be a husband and father. Then, suddenly, he will work very hard to uplift ALL people.

Giving men insufficient reason to do 5 times more work than they need to support themselves is the best way to obliterate a society. You might as well show radioactive waste into the soil, and turn New York into the Forbidden Zone in the Planet of the Apes.

When only men have the right to vote, women influence how men vote, and thus women still have 50% of the power.

When women also have the right to vote, women now hold 75% of the power.

Think about that for a bit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 5
mananon January 31, 2011 at 17:28

So in effect it’s now “curtail freedom to combat misogyny’.

I though that already happened in the real world – it’s called Political Correctness.

He also said he likes these things – freedom, openness, egalitarianism… do you want him to join our happy band or shall I?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
ReaderLon January 31, 2011 at 17:29

I know the answer. I just wanted to point out that always things are proposed for women but rarely for men. How misandrist, isn’t it? Alte also wrote about it recently?

http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/sir-will-you-please-take-my-vote/

Slightly off-topic: How about this article http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/IT_growth_and_global_change_A_conversation_with_Ray_Kurzweil_2728? Everybody should watch his Ted talk from 2006 and discuss timing!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
mananon January 31, 2011 at 17:33

Sorry! I meant ‘ask him to join our happy band…’

The joke’s spoiled now…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Joe Zamboni January 31, 2011 at 17:35

This is actually a good sign. American feminists have nearly nothing to complain about. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel, desperately looking for something that might constitute gender unfairness, or domination by men. Next they’ll be complaining about the overwhelming number of patents that men receive when compared to those received by women… no doubt this will be held up as an indication that there must be a gender bias in the Patent & Trademark Office.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
mananon January 31, 2011 at 17:48

If a feminist is questioned about the lack of male primary/elementary school teachers the stock response is ‘gender doesn’t matter, it’s the quality of teaching that counts’.

So that’s our rebuttal. Gender doesn’t matter. It’s expertise and imparted knowledge that’s important.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Traveller January 31, 2011 at 17:50

“Herbal Essence January 31, 2011 at 15:53

Let’s see.
A successful Wikipedia contributor must demonstrate effectiveness in:
Logic
Reason
Research
Truth-Telling
Grammar and Spelling
Solid understanding of difficult subject matter
Basic understanding of code.

Gee, I can’t FATHOM why women don’t participate much…”

Ok you already wrote in a good concise way what is exactly my opinion on any similar matter so I will not rewrite it.

I notice anyway, even if there are few actual females as contributors, the quality of the Wikipedia articles on recent news facts or society is incredibly low. This happens because there are a lot of manginas or communists writing crap. It does not matter if they are male.

For example, if a noticeable crime is committed against a male or a white, the article is very hard and condemnatory. While if any crime is done by a woman or a non white, the article is full of expression like “alleged”, or “he said they did” (not “they did”, but “he said…”).

Or other example, in the Race (in)famous pathetic article they say race is a social construct. I am glad the difference between a chihuahua and a dobermann is totally social (I would not tell it to the dobermann anyway). They somewhat tried to patch it with some considerations about the word “race” but the effect remains: for animals is biology, for humans is social. Sure.

Or guess the article about ancient Egyptians, the “theory” about them being black is considered seriously (don’t you want to be racist, right?)

Have someone ever read the article about the birth certificate of Obama? You can guess the tone.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 7
TFH January 31, 2011 at 17:55

Wikipedia is merely proof that almost everything of value has been created by men.

Seriously. An article about, say, a science topic involves research done by men, which in turn is written about BY men, in wikipedia.

An article about, say, Saturn, or about Triceratops, is layer upon layer of male accomplishment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 3
Laura Grace Robins January 31, 2011 at 18:04

“If you want to see what women are interested in, visit Jezebel and take a look at the articles. The overwhelming majority of articles are about celebrities and fashion. Fashion and fame are transient; they change with the seasons and are forgotten as quickly as they move on from one thing to the next. A Wikipedia for women would not be a fairly static collection of facts, but a flickering panoply of constantly changing images, never the same for more than a moment. ”

Sites like “Jezebel”, “Frisky”, “Momlogic”, and “Blogher” are all the same. When I go through these sites for blog ideas, I always think if women are so smart, educated, and sophisticated, why is it that all they can write on is celebrity gossip, dating, sex, shopping, fashion, etc. I have yet to be impressed by any of the ‘articles’ on these sites. They are just fluff pieces and attention grabbers. That would be fine if women didn’t hold themselves out as educated and capable of deep discussion and debate. I think the online reading material for women is indicative that women really don’t care about deep thinking (and again hence why no interest in Wikipedia) or even higher education. The degree makes a good fashion accessory, just like a handbag, but that is all it is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 2
silent January 31, 2011 at 18:09

I can tell by your unusual tone that something is pissing you off Mr. Price. I think you should take a mini vacation or whatever.

I’d say let’s grab a beer, but you’re about as far from Delta Charlie as possible.

13% is quite a surprise. Curious as to how much of that 13% is drawn from men’s work

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Laura Grace Robins January 31, 2011 at 18:17

Speaking of….that got me thinking, I went to our bookshelves and out of 200 or so scholarly books, 5 are by women. So am I sexist now for having mostly male authored books? Probably. Take war books, for example, how many women really care about researching and writing about World War 1? Next we are going to hear that only 2% of women write war books, hence sexism rules! NO, its that women just don’t care to write about war.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 0
scatmaster January 31, 2011 at 18:27

Herbal Essence said:

Let’s see.
A successful Wikipedia contributor must demonstrate effectiveness in:
Logic
Reason
Research
Truth-Telling
Grammar and Spelling
Solid understanding of difficult subject matter
Basic understanding of code.

Gee, I can’t FATHOM why women don’t participate much…

I see what you did there. Thanks for the lorf.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Anonymous 69 January 31, 2011 at 18:32

“How comes women always need encouragement for something when it is obvious they do not care.”

Why would they do it? Will it help them in mating? :)

I read Wikipedia all the time. Mostly about history, anthropology, international affairs, geography, music. I hardly ever read women’s magazines.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 18
Anonymous 69 January 31, 2011 at 18:40

And, yea, btw.. it is surprising that you guys hardly ever mention one area where men truly excel – MUSIC. Especially such supreme genres as classical and rock/metal.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 18
Pierce Harlan January 31, 2011 at 18:57

Why is there is always an urge to socially engineer any endeavor where males are prominent?

And if men dominate a given endeavor, it must be that the “culture” discourages female participation. It’s never that, gee, men and women have different interests. There MUST be an element of female oppression because otherwise, OF COURSE women would be every bit as active as men!

And you know what? Ask 100 reasonably intelligent people who aren’t drunk on gender issues, and they’ll tell you the same thing the post here says: women are just less interested in this stuff than men. Period. That’s the way it is.

Are these same enlightened souls concerned that the audience for the ballet skews too heavily female? Somehow, I think they are just fine with that, and with anything else where men are marginalized.

If they really want to increase female participation in Wikipedia, they would concentrate on getting women to read non-fiction books to the degree men do, instead of the escapist stuff women gravitate to. Start a campaign geared at girls: “Real girls read serious books!”

Yeah. That’ll be the day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
stickman January 31, 2011 at 19:34

If I understand it correctly Wikki is open correct ? if all one must do is know what your talking about and submit it. In what universe is that ANYTHING but equal ?

Anyway I for one cannot wait until women are encouraged to empower themselves and overcome the last true bastion of male Dominance
DEATH ON THE BATTLEFIELD ! Time to EARN them rights. Now go get ya some Trigger Time Bitches

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Jim January 31, 2011 at 20:05

Wikipedia and feminism.. No description of feminism is worth two cents unless its biggest component is a list of the repercussions of feminism.

Feminism could also be referred to as a social disorder brought on by the delusional belief that the sexes are equal, as opposed to different.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Bob Smith January 31, 2011 at 20:36

Wikipedia is run by pretty hardcore leftists. How could such supposed bias happen under their watch? What’s next, demand men can only write long articles on stuff that interests them if they also write long articles on stuff that doesn’t?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Avenger January 31, 2011 at 20:47

women are just less interested in this stuff than men. Period. That’s the way it is.

Females actually have few interests while men have an almost unlimited interest in a variety things.
Are these same enlightened souls concerned that the audience for the ballet skews too heavily female?
I doubt if even that is true. All of the top trainers in the history of ballet were men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
Rebel January 31, 2011 at 21:26

Many fields have been conquered and tamed by women: those are the fields where they excell. And that’s good.

Men excell in other fields such as music and the arts in general. Science, mathematics are also such fields. And that’s good.

Why can’t people be left alone and go for the life of their chosing. Why force women into technical stuff if they don’t like it?
Why must the gender ratio always be calculated out in every aspect of our lives?
Who has set those rules?

Men and women are not equal or the same (thanks God): they are complementary.

Who is changing the nature of things in our name?

The feminists are mere puppets.
There is someone else higher up.
Those people who are in control will continue to manipulate us and destroy us until there is a discontinuity, a gap, a chasm, a singularity between their body and their head. A distance between the two. A division. A kind of no fault divorce.
(off with it). That’s the answer to the riddle.
Will we manufacture shorter coffins?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
alpha January 31, 2011 at 21:32

[[“It is ironic,” he said, “because I like these things — freedom, openness, egalitarian ideas — but I think to some extent they are compounding and hiding problems you might find in the real world.”]]

aa now I get it!
freedom,openness,egalitarian ideas hide problems found in the real world!
So let’s get rid of them!
let’s go back to those Golden Years without freedom!

You know, when we men did not believe such guano that women are “as capable,strong,smart,tough” as men!
Yeah, our obsession with openness is what allowed us to allow women to demand the vote- take it away.

This slimeball has a problem with too many men contributing to a WEBSITE.

Someone ought to hire a woman to slap a False Rape Accusation on him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire January 31, 2011 at 22:45

“Gender is a huge hot-button issue for lots of people who feel strongly about it. I am not interested in triggering those strong feelings.”

translation: “You PC assholes can shove your shit where the sun doesn’t shine.”

Well done Ms. Gardner!

A Harvard academic, Joseph Reagle, says that the problem is that Wikipedia is too open — even going so far as to allow misogynists to contribute!

A misogynist these days is anybody who dares to criticize women.

There’s a reason women don’t generally contribute to Wikipedia, and it has little to do with sexism, “culture,” or lack of rules. The reason is, simply, that they don’t care. That’s right, it may be amazing to some people, but the overwhelming majority of women simply couldn’t care less about an online encyclopedia.

Yes. If most women wanted to contribute and were barred by ‘misogynists’ from doing so then their voices would be heard loud and clear.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Lavazza January 31, 2011 at 23:37

A lot of females put big unpaid efforts into putting information on the net, the biggest being fashion blogs where they tell each other what they have bought and what they are wearing for the day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
gwallan February 1, 2011 at 00:16

A topic generally restricted to teenage girls, like friendship bracelets, can seem short at four paragraphs when compared with lengthy articles on something boys might favor, like, toy soldiers or baseball cards, whose voluminous entry includes a detailed chronological history of the subject.

Toy soldiers? Baseball cards?

There are serious collectors of these things and they can sell for extraordinary prices.

Friendship bracelets?

Does anybody actually make a serious pursuit of collecting these? How much could I expect to pay for a Madonna rookie(virgin?) hemp bracelet with fish hook clasp?

Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs.

Aren’t they men? Who’s actually being “discriminated against” here?

And consider the disparity between two popular series on HBO: The entry on “Sex and the City” includes only a brief summary of every episode, sometimes two or three sentences; the one on “The Sopranos” includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode.

It does help when a TV show actually depicts something more than women gossiping over lattes and coy sex scenes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
gwallan February 1, 2011 at 00:19

Actually Madonna may be a bad example given that she and “virgin” never existed in the same universe. That item, by definition, would be priceless.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Anonymous February 1, 2011 at 01:15

Of course Wikipedia allows “misogynists” to contribute, as refusing to allow people who hold a particular point of view to contribute would violate the NPOV policy, which is at the very heart of Wikipedia. As all readers of The Spearhead know very well, most women cannot handle somebody disagreeing with them, so they are not going to make good Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia takes that NPOV policy very seriously, so the only way to slant Wikipedia articles and have a good chance of getting away with it is to become an administrator (since the admins can find pretexts to ban those who hold an opposing point of view).

If you go on Wikipedia and start “POV pushing,” you won’t last long. I wonder why more women don’t contribute to Wikipedia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10
muhr February 1, 2011 at 01:38

would these pieces of trash be satisfied if the male contributors reduced their numbers to match the female numbers?

maybe men should do that and go a step further by reducing their numbers in all activities/jobs that we outnumber women.

leave the military.

leave the mines.

leave the construction industry.

leave the sciences.

etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
freebird February 1, 2011 at 01:46

The feminists dominate wikipedia on gender related topics.
Try modifying the definition of “feminism” or “misandry”It will be reverted in seconds.
There is some wild blather there under “feminism” something to the effect that Hitler was a rabid antifeminist and that’s how he got his start, not fighting “communism.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Gendeau February 1, 2011 at 03:33

Wikipedia, a virtual world where what you say is true defines ‘reality’. All you need is to get enough sistas with the same ideas, et voila! If you’re looking for consensus ‘thinking’ you’ve gotta be thinking “teh wimmenz”

Sounds perfect for women!

Why aren’t they having to beat female contributors off with shitty sticks?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
nigeles175d February 1, 2011 at 04:02

I stopped donating to wikipedia after feminists deleted, removed and harrassed men’s rights writers over men’s issues, rights, and other MRA/MGTOW articles, having them declared as “hate speech”.

Censorship is the enemy of liberty and freedom.

The Spearhead and many other forums would not exist if the feminists had their way. The feminists would not even allow your average woman to have celebrity and fashion as issues. It would become a world gulag of female superiority.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Kyo February 1, 2011 at 04:38

Nigeles, I remember several years ago when attempts were made to get subjects like the “marriage strike” and “MGTOW” into Wikipedia. An eighteen-year-old boy led the drive to have them deleted, citing “non-notability”.

It’s one thing to make contributions and add to the sum of the world’s knowledge no matter how may years you’ve been on this earth. It’s quite another to think you’ve experienced enough of the world to know what’s notable and what isn’t when you’ve only barely reached the age of majority.

BTW, Anonymous 69, happy birthday!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 1, 2011 at 04:53

Gents,
if you want to see what women are interested in on any given day? Bookmark this and juct click on it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/index.html

Anyone who tries to tell me women are equal to men? Send them the link.

Talking about girls just wanna have fun.

I wonder if Cindy Lauper is having fun now? Doesn’t look it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1352409/Cyndi-Lauper-shows-red-sore-looking-skin-goes-make-free-airport.html

TFH January 31, 2011 at 15:42
“Can’t we send Joseph Reagle tons of emails that inform him of the existence of The Spearhead?”

Nah…this is more fun!
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/57/threadid/691/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Augenblick February 1, 2011 at 05:46

Already exists a enciclopedia made only by men, still biased but so true.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Feminism

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Clarence February 1, 2011 at 06:43

Kyo:

Marriage strike is mentioned under “Mens Rights” and there does seem to be more content there than a few years ago. As the movement gets bigger it becomes harder to ignore, plus some of the editors are at times leaning our way.

So Wikipedia is improving. But remember it is an encyclopaedia, not an advocacy project.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Clarence February 1, 2011 at 06:46
Ken February 1, 2011 at 07:02

Wikipedia in the hands of a majority-female crew (feminists) would reduce the site to the level of the AIR AMERICA show….wait a minute, there is no more Air America on the radio! :) ~

Men contribute the most because the site requires encyclopedic reporting and concise details, etc. Men are simply better at that endeavor because it is within our natural level of interest~!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
theforest February 1, 2011 at 07:05

You guys, I found some female “Internet contributers,” we should like message them and see if they want to write some Wiki’s…

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Juicy+Jabber&aq=f

This chicks got like a half a million followers….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
AntZ February 1, 2011 at 07:19

Men care about the collective welfare of all.
Women care about their own welfare.

What is new?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Anonymous 69 February 1, 2011 at 07:42

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 28
Anonymous 69 February 1, 2011 at 07:48

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 29
Keyster February 1, 2011 at 07:49

Who’s winning the war against feminism?
Other women, by simply being themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Ms_Fu February 1, 2011 at 08:19

This doesn’t surprise me a bit. Women don’t like to contribute information or read anything of much substance.

I aspire to freelance write for magazines, so I purchase and study a lot of magazines geared towards men and women. Even with most men’s magazines having ‘mangina’ tendencies and leanings, publications such as Esquire and GQ have articles that are several thousand words long on subjects ranging from politics to food to women. They also have (comparatively) fewer graphics.

In contrast, women’s magazines are like children’s books. Lots of colors and pictures and not a lot of words. Articles are of the self-service type (“Could your diet be making you fat?”) and usually aren’t longer than 1500 words and are filled with heavily recycled ‘information.’ Men’s magazines have self-service articles as well, but they tend to be better researched and more informative.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6
Scattered February 1, 2011 at 08:38

When you start birthing children.

Take your collectivist bullshit somewhere else please, just because women birth children doesn’t mean I owe them shit. Other peoples kids are not my problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Wulf February 1, 2011 at 08:43

I sent the good doc an email:

Dear Doc,

A misogynist is a man that thinks women are intelligent, rational and mature human beings and expects them to act that way.
How is that a bad thing? Is it asking too much of women? Should I lower my expectations?

Wulf

* nod to Mr. Elam *

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence February 1, 2011 at 08:45

Anonymous 69- “When you start birthing children.”

Actually, women have proven to the world that they are as likely to get their child sucked out of their womb and thrown in a dumpster, as they are to birth it. Not to mention all the women who abuse and murder their children after they’re born.

The Modern Female: “My womb makes me the Goddess of the Earth, from which all life comes. Unless it’s inconvenient to me at the time, in which case that baby is fucked.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
paigeu February 1, 2011 at 08:59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 20
Ms_Fu February 1, 2011 at 10:40

“Women have depth, it is just generally geared towards the relational rather than objective facts and ideas that do not relate directly to human life experience.”

Do you read a lot of women’s and celebrity magazines, paigeu? Have you noticed that the personal experiences of men are hardly mentioned in these magazines? Of course there are exceptions, that is, male celebrities and attractive politicians. But if women are so interested in human life experience, then why aren’t there stories in women’s periodicals about fathers dealing with autism, and homeless veterans?

The only mention of politics (and even social issues) in women’s magazines is when they can be given a feminist slant.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
Poester99 February 1, 2011 at 11:32

However, there may be some hope. Sue Gardner of the Wikimedia foundation, the NGO that runs Wikipedia, is taking a soft approach to encouraging women to contribute. In a reference to the many, many men who contribute and clearly know how the field is tilted against them in the greater society, she says: “Gender is a huge hot-button issue for lots of people who feel strongly about it. I am not interested in triggering those strong feelings.”

This is only the first salvo from the forces of misandry. Wikipedia will crack, and we will all be the worse for it.

@Anonymous 69,

We’re (soon) going to invent machines that can gestate children, to avoid inconveniencing some mindless twat, so don’t get all high and preachy.
Wombs are not very safe places these days. Women demanded and got the right to, with a doctor’s assistance, play God with the human life growing within them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 1, 2011 at 11:47

Gents,
if you want to see what women are interested in on any given day? Bookmark this and juct click on it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/index.html

Anyone who tries to tell me women are equal to men? Send them the link.

Talking about girls just wanna have fun.

I wonder if Cindy Lauper is having fun now? Doesn’t look it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1352409/Cyndi-Lauper-shows-red-sore-looking-skin-goes-make-free-airport.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 1, 2011 at 11:48

TFH January 31, 2011 at 15:42
“Can’t we send Joseph Reagle tons of emails that inform him of the existence of The Spearhead?”

Nah…this is more fun!
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/57/threadid/691/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Firepower February 1, 2011 at 11:54

w.f.price

if one counted all contributions rather than contributors, those made by women probably fall well under the 10% mark.

That means they fall well WELL under the 10% mark of attractiveness: I can’t imagine the horrific fugsters that submit articles there. Women shouldn’t have academic pursuits.

Most female profs are dick-shriveling monsters. Kock Kryptonite.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7
Clarence February 1, 2011 at 12:46

Ahh, I see FirePower is enlightening us as to just how stupid a misogynist can be. “Women shouldn’t have academic pursuits”. Spoken like a true scared retard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12
Spiceconsumer February 1, 2011 at 13:47

Long time reader, first time poster.

I just created a Wikipedia account and all it asks for is a User Name and Password. E-mail address is ‘optional’.

Once the account was created I checked the ‘preferences’ tab. I have the option to choose my gender in a drop down menu. The default is ‘unspecified.’

I’ve check the actual report published. It can be found here Table5 Page7: http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf

No where does that table list ‘unspecfied’. There is a table listed for ‘other’ and the numbers are extremely low. This raises several questions especially the authenticity of the data.

1. Is ‘other’ actually ‘unspecified’?
2. How was this data gathered in the first place? At no point in the report that I could find did it in fact say.
3. Outside of the report’s metrics, how many user accounts have actually specified a gender and what are those numbers?

All those questions lead to others. Why does it even matter if a male or female is a contributor to a fact based collaborative volunteer effort?

Can anyone assist in independently verifying this data? Or collecting data all user accounts as I’ve listed in point #3?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
IronLowrider February 1, 2011 at 15:23

@Spiceconsumer: You don’t think that
“The contributors who don’t specify their gender are more likely to be females than those who do”
is a reasonable hypothesis. do you?

Anyway, you should email your questions to the authors first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SMC February 1, 2011 at 17:20

I sent this to regel.

Not one of my better ones I admit.

———
If you think Wikipedia has misogynists there, you’ll love “the spearhead.”

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/31/wikipedia-pleading-for-female-contributors-without-success/

They might even be able to define “misogyny” for you there.
————–

And people are noting the last names of the creatures that wrote the NYT article and teach these “classes” right?

That cult of wandering troublemakers was not just content to get rid of the barbarians, vikings and legions with their “meek-shall-inherit-the-earth” utopian cult LIES 2000 years ago. They can’t even accept the “masculinity” that exists even on the internet.

A word to the wise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6
SMC February 1, 2011 at 17:31

zyk0s January 31, 2011 at 15:52

How can he say misogynists are tolerated, with a straight face, when any page related to feminism is safely guarded by an army of ideologues. Not only those pages, but the ones having to do with Men’s Rights as well. Try removing the slanders on the MRM from pages like the Polytechnique shooting, you’ll know what I mean.

And that is a very important point. Wikpedia is already a liberal PC bastion, especially regarding gender.

But it is still too masculine for that strain of wanderer.

It is a very effective political strategy to denounce your own side as the of the enemy. That will pull the center dial even more to one’s extremism.

That is why extremism on “our side” is so important.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
mgtow February 1, 2011 at 17:53

As usual, stupid feminism-driven gender equality bullshit advocating 50-50 in *most* gender representation: Wikipedia contributors, engineers, politicians, top CEOs, athletes etc…

I say *most*, because you never hear of them hankering for more women in frontline combat, dangerous jobs, dirty jobs, menial jobs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Poester99 February 1, 2011 at 18:23

Waiting for Clearance, Clarence.
What’s your Vector, Victor?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
fmz February 1, 2011 at 23:03

Cohen will end up married with children and screwed in divorce court.

l will figuratively be there, cheering her, when he be screwed.

Cohen is sacrificial lamb. He’s a very useful example. No mra stuff could even come close to how cohen promotes the mra agenda.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
x2 February 2, 2011 at 02:32

Ms_Fu,

“I aspire to freelance write for magazines, so I purchase and study a lot of magazines geared towards men and women. Even with most men’s magazines having ‘mangina’ tendencies and leanings, publications such as Esquire and GQ have articles that are several thousand words long on subjects ranging from politics to food to women. They also have (comparatively) fewer graphics.

In contrast, women’s magazines are like children’s books. Lots of colors and pictures and not a lot of words. Articles are of the self-service type (“Could your diet be making you fat?”) and usually aren’t longer than 1500 words and are filled with heavily recycled ‘information.’ Men’s magazines have self-service articles as well, but they tend to be better researched and more informative.”

Sounds like you need to do some more research, first of all. Especially as an aspiring freelance writer. I freelance for magazines, including several national ones. The majority of my writing is for two magazines, one that is aimed exclusively at women, and one that is read almost exclusively by men.

Both of these magazines have feature articles that are around 1,500 words in length–if you’ve ever seen an article in a mainstream magazine that’s “several thousand words long” you’re lying or you’re really bad at counting words. Also, the female magazine I write for has more outwardly frivolous articles–that are far, far, just absurdly more researched than any other publication I’ve ever had any contact with, including “hard journalism” i.e. newspapers. Just insane, actually. So yes…perhaps it’s time for you to start looking down a different career path.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
Mr Bill February 2, 2011 at 04:08

Wisdom and the quest for knowledge have been and always WILL be predominantly masculine virtues. I can count female philosophers on one hand, and in the upper echelon of all sciences, men dominate.

When we were still living in caves, men had to be the ones to explore the world, develop tools for killing, test which plants were edible, etc. Women mostly attached themselves to men, socialized with each other, and took care of children. This is where we get our motivations today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
paigeu February 2, 2011 at 07:38

Ms. Fu-

I don’t read Cosmo and the like but I do read People and Readers Digest. There are plenty of articles about men in these magazines.

I am not a feminist because I believe that men and women have innate differences that should be acknowledged. I disagree with many of the comments to this article because I see these differences as being morally neutral and not a sign of female inferiority.

Women are capable of great devotion to a cause or a person. This is the feminine charism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8
Wow February 2, 2011 at 10:10

I like how almost everyone here assumes that “women are trying to take over wikipedia” immediately rather than what it really is, just more “female contribution”. And looking to Magazines, at least, popular magazines for women isn’t really a good point. What about Ms. Magazine, and BUST magazine. Which feature a lot of articles that talk about world politics, interesting things in the world, etc. etc

And to mgtow, you are ignoring the women who are already in those “jobs” that you are talking about. Women join the army, women clean up shit and do jobs that you said “they don’t want”. Anyway, what is everyone so afraid of?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
Firepower February 2, 2011 at 10:36

Clarence February 1, 2011 at 12:46

Ahh, I see FirePower is enlightening us as to just how stupid a misogynist can be.

And your thumbs-up ratings enlighten on just how much pussy is here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Bob Smith February 2, 2011 at 11:01

Women join the army

Yes, but did they accept the Army as it was? Of course not, and that’s the problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
paigeu February 2, 2011 at 11:57

I don’t understand the suggestion that it is mostly men working the crummy jobs? I have done a whole lotta crummy jobs! Cleaning up used condoms as a hotel housekeeper was hardly glamorous. The excessively rude comments I endured as a waitress wasn’t too great for my self-esteem. I have certainly done my share of toiling in the heat and sun…particularly when I was a private in the Army. I even have a wealthy father but I have too much pride to ask for help. Quite frankly- I would rather live in a cardboard box! I may let my husband support me but I have also supported him at times. I try my best to carry my weight regardless of who is bringing home the paycheck.

I don’ t think I am that unusual of a female. I have known many females just like me. We value fairness and a good work ethic.

I think men have legitimate complaints about feminism…hence the reason I read the Spearhead and many times agree with the main article…but many of these comments are just crazy!

When I hear women complain about men I often tell them that they are just running with the wrong crowd. I think the same could be said for many of the men here.

As far as intellectual depth – My local philosophers group has 3 women for every 10 men. The literature club has about 10 women per 1 male. The literature discussions often take a philosophical tone but without the academic jargon that the men in the philosophers group use. Same depth, different vocabulary.

When I go to womens and mainstream sites I often feel like an apologist for men. Here…I seem to be an apologist for women. I am probably waisting my time in both places. heh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Warren C. February 2, 2011 at 12:31

Reading the article on feministing one would think it’s another fiendish plot by men to keep women down. Now we’re so powerful and malicious that we can force women to not volunteer their time whether their aware of it or not. According to them we’re obsessive aggressive nerds who write these wiki posts (not that i’ve written one, but read many). Maybe that’s why it’s a success, it’s written by mostly men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Lily February 2, 2011 at 14:50

I add things onto Wikipedia sometimes, perhaps once a fortnight. Though admittedly I’ve only set up a handful of new entries, I usually add things to existing pages. However, they wouldn’t know I’m a female, I have no desire to set up an account, I don’t write things for ‘glory’. Some wikipedia contributors seem to.

As for magazines, yes many magazines aimed at women are pretty nonsensical, though personally I find Vogue and Marie Claire have better much general interest articles than say Nuts, Loaded or Maxim!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
gwallan February 2, 2011 at 18:19

@paigeu

Is it likely that I would find an article about Angelina Jolie more interesting than the random wiki article? Yeah…because Angelina is a person and the lives of people arouse both my emotions and my intellect. Its a more holistic experience…and therefore more enjoyable than an experience that only involves rationality/logic/etc.

That’s voyeurism incarnate.

I will take a great interest in the ideas of people, their deeds and accomplishments. I do NOT need to know who they’re fucking, who’s having who’s baby, how bad their stretch lines are, who bared it on the beach. I learn nothing useful. It’s nothing but intrusion. On them AND me.

It’s supposedly men who think of nothing but sex.

In reality it sometimes seems it’s the only thing women ever talk about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
ZenCo. February 2, 2011 at 21:22

Altruism is a bitch – is it not ladies?
These apes are pushing fast and hard for their own demise.
I say, the sooner we get past the tipping point and get the bloody rioting and anti-government violence over, the better. Because, it’s coming and change comes whether you’re prepared or not.
Look at Tunisia. Look at Egypt.
Coming soon to a theatre near you.
I’m an American who realizes how ignorant and stupid most Americans are for forgetting their own country’s revolutionary birth. A country born by troublemakers, malcontetents, tax-dodgers, pure capitalists/scam artists, and intellectuals. A good mix if you ask me.
Everyone’s confused now and nobody knows what it all means anymore.
Maybe none of it actually ever meant anything.
Who knows?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Ramses February 2, 2011 at 22:11

Typical fembot/gynbot logic— we want diversity and openness but not diversity that disadvantages “us”.

Actually – their “logic” is not logic at all but rather strategic maximization of advantage in every situation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Ramses February 2, 2011 at 22:21

I’ve never seen any woman on the bus/subway reading anything but “girlie” stuff- 99 percent of it written by other women. Books about women, written by women and read by mostly women or seriously warped metrosexuals. It’s either that OR some work-related stuff. Occasionally some foreign literature in translation. But even that seems to be on the way out -as most urbanites can be seen manipulating their magical widget/gadget/IPods and IPads – probably twittering and twattering or facebooking with one of their 7,258 “friends”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
paigeu February 3, 2011 at 07:59

Gwallan-
Lets be real. Men discuss silly shallow stuff just as much as women do. I have seen men talk for hours about cars, motorcycles and Star Wars. *yawn*.

Ramses-
If I am on the subway you can bet I am probably listening to a podcast and not trying to read. Too many distractions.

My friends and I have deep conversations and incredibly shallow conversations…often in rapid succession. Its the feminine mystique. Talking about lip gloss can be as interesting as talking about Nietzsche.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Willy Wonka February 3, 2011 at 08:35

Lol, I find the “mysogynists” comment by a Harvard professor both amusing and disturbing. What a puss.

So, is everything that is mainly watched, accomplished, and edited by men now a problem? Just because women don’t have any interests to do so does not mean its the mysogynists fault, or that its even a problem…

I probably wouldn’t even read Wikipedia if it was written by too many women. God, their Facebook statuses are annoying enough…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
KARMA MRA MGTOW February 3, 2011 at 16:32

Joseph Reagle contradicts himself so many times!
Joseph Reagle is a massive hypocrite.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
KARMA MRA MGTOW February 3, 2011 at 16:41

From the NYT article

‘Kat Walsh, a policy analyst and longtime Wikipedia contributor who was elected to the Wikimedia board, agreed that indirect initiatives would cause less unease in the Wikipedia community than more overt efforts.’

‘But she acknowledged the hurdles: “The big problem is that the current Wikipedia community is what came about by letting things develop naturally — trying to influence it in another direction is no longer the easiest path, and requires conscious effort to change.” ‘

I think Kat Walsh should be given a one way ticket to North Korea that’s where she belongs they have a wonderful track record of social engineering.

So stupid Kat Walsh is on the board and wants to shaft %83 of the volunteers, silly stupid bitch!

This is why more men should go MGTOW don’t support females like her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
KARMA MRA MGTOW February 3, 2011 at 16:48

Maybe Kat Walsh and the brainless, mooching sisterhood can start a Wikipedia of their own in competition with Wikipedia, actually they can ban males altogether.No doubt it will kill of Wikipedia as it will be a superior product – not.

Main steam media must DIE!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
KARMA MRA MGTOW February 3, 2011 at 17:08

paigeu February 2, 2011 at 11:57

I don’t understand the suggestion that it is mostly men working the crummy jobs? I have done a whole lotta crummy jobs!

paigeu, this maybe so, but you can’t extrapolate your experiences onto the rest of society.I often see women commit this silly flaw in logic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Son Of Mosh February 4, 2011 at 02:25

Interesting tone in the comments here, and not entirely unjustified.

But here’s a thought, instead of vaguely pissed off generalisations about women and their topic of focus, and venting rage at the “intelligensia”, how about looking at it this way:
13% of Wikipedia contributions are made by women, so how about lauding that those women (whoever they may be) instead of worrying about why the other 87% of contributions. Who cares what people who dont contribute think, or want to write about?
What is the percentage of the overall population contributes to Wikipedia? I’d bet that it is actually pretty low. Let’s say, for instance, that of the percentage of the male population contributors to Wikipedia is 13% of the population, that still means that there’s 87% of the male population that arent interested in anything more than vapid, pointless pursuits either.

Yes, I know the math is skewed, the point here to thank the female Wikipedia users who add to Wikipedia for their contribution, and not worry about anyone who doesn’t contribute for whatever reasons they have.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Foelpergeri November 1, 2011 at 11:41

There is a book – [http://www.squidoo.com/burn-the-fat-feed-the-muscle-diet-book burn the fat diet plan] . I’ve heard good reviews. Tom Venuto wrote the book and it’s a proven weight loss method.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 6 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: