~ archived since 2018 ~

The wikipedia page on gender quality is heavily biased towards women problems.

reereeeees

October 24, 2018

51 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	The wikipedia page on gender quality is heavily biased towards women problems.
Author	reereeeees
Upvotes	51
Comments	6
Date	October 24, 2018 6:46 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/9r2gq3/the_wikipedia_page_on_gender_quality_is_heavily/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/the-wikipedia-page-on-gender-quality-is-heavily.470032 https://theredarchive.com/post/470032

Comments

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cryptotim707265 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dravenaus-2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]dravenaus-3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OldRoad1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whatever you agree with, I think you will find that Wikipedia tends to be a reflection of what are considered "mainstream" views -- basically along the lines with the types of information that you'd see in the major newspapers, or the major cable news networks. You can argue that what are considered mainstream views is strongly influenced by the wealthy, as your typical next-door neighbor does not control what appears on a major cable news network.

I think that Wikipedia's strong reflection of the "mainstream" is a product of at least two causes:

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Wikipedia require its information to be taken only from mainstream or "accepted" information sources? Of course, the problem with this approach would be that we always hear about the centralization of mainstream media. So, if someone just keeps information out of mainstream media, then, from what I understand, it tends to not make it on Wikipedia.
It does seem like anything that becomes popular and widely used gets the attention of those who would try to "take it over" for their own purposes. When I read certain politics-related articles on Wikipedia, I feel like this is happening there, at least to some degree. I've seen articles there that definitely look like they've been written specifically for some goal other than information. So, just like mainstream media, they will leave out some of the most important points and information that would make an unfavored view look stronger; and they may take a rather friendly view toward another view while making sure that arguments against that view are either defended against or not presented in the article. This is done while appearing to not take sides; it's like introduction to propaganda. I was reading about a politician on there one time, and I wanted to find out the politician's view on a particular issue. It was something that was important enough to be in the article, but also might make some people not vote for that politician. Well, it appeared that the article was silent on the information that I was looking for, and it did seem like some professional marketing-type business might have gone over the article, to try to fix it up to help the politician. Of course, I can't prove that, but it sure seemed that way.

Sadly, as long as there are greedy and/or power-hungry people in the world, there are going to be people who want to establish sources of "The Real Truth," that is under their control, of course.

I'd like to see Wikipedia address this issue by allowing the presentation of research and evidence, whether or not from a mainstream "favored" source, and maybe have an organized way of allowing all sides to present and debate information and evidence. Maybe have a section of the article for this specific purpose. Then, instead of simply being silent on issues that people disagree about, we could actually see people from all sides set forth their best arguments (and respond to each others arguments), and people could make up their own minds. I'm not sure exactly how they could do this, but it would have to be carefully designed so that it would not become a completely unorganized mess, and also would not be a source of propaganda manipulation itself. I think they have an area where they discuss what to put in the article, but that is not the same thing, and I doubt that many people go past the article itself to read whatever was debated in that other area.

I LIKE the general idea of Wikipedia, and, for information that people do NOT have some reason to propagandize, Wikipedia is great, like looking up what albums and songs that a particular band has issued. You can spend hours on there reading about science, medicine, and so much more. But it's sad that it doesn't seem to be the best when it comes to issues that people strongly disagree about. Because of that, I don't have as high of an opinion of Wikipedia as I used to.