Have you ever gone to Wikipedia for information? Millions of people around the world do. I admit that I use Wikipedia to get background information on a city, region, person, etc., to use in my writings. I’ve never thought that the free encyclopedic website looked too masculine, but then I’m a male so why would I?
Evidently a growing number of feminists do think that Wikipedia is far too masculine in its design and appearance and they are planning to do something about it. Feminist groups from over a dozen different universities have nothing better to do than to invent issues which they can tackle just to give themselves something to do and make them feel better about themselves.
Sometime in the next week, they plan on carrying out their Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon to feminize Wikipedia. They plan on re-writing as much of the website as possible to make it less masculine. Some of the schools involved in the Edit-a-Thon include the University of Texas, University of Iowa, Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Last year a similar Edit-a-Thon was carried out by feminists where they went into a number of Wikipedia postings and inserted more feminist thought in them.
One of those involved in Sarah Stierch, a researcher and contributor with the Wikipedia Foundation. She commented about the feminist efforts, saying:
“It’s aesthetically very masculine in its design,” said Stierch in a statement to The Daily Dot, also noting that, “The average Wikipedia editor is a well-educated white male. Well-educated white males have been writing history and the story of the world since ancient times.”
Another event organizer, Krystal South told Bitch Magazine:
“It’s not like my life passion to make Wikipedia feminist, but it’s been really surprising, there’s this whole underground world that I wasn’t aware of people who are dedicated to editing Wikipedia. The beauty of Wikipedia is it’s a public institution, people have the ability to go change it.”
One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it is open to anyone to post and edit to it. That is also one of its biggest weaknesses in that not all of the information posted is accurate. You have to use discretion when using Wikipedia as a reference for anything. Generally basic background information is fairly safe, but when you begin to look at political, religious and other topics, they can and are swayed by the contributor’s own opinions. I have found instances where this has happened. In fact, I once went into it to correct some misinformation on a posting and discovered that a couple weeks later my corrections had been removed and the old wrong information was reposted, all because someone held a warped view on the topic and did not bother to research it for accuracy.
I’m not sure how you would feminize many postings on Wikipedia, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see them change those dealing with abortion and other women’s rights to make the postings read purely from a feminist, pro-abortion view point and do away with any of the opposing arguments. Quite possibly, some of the more neutral postings that present both sides of feminist issues will soon only present their side and nothing else. I don’t know, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Therefore, if you want to learn more about controversial issues such as abortion, women’s rights, the history of women’s rights, I would highly recommend that you only use Wikipedia as a reference base. Then use a number of websites from both sides of an issue to get a more concise view on your issue. The more radicalists like these feminists edit Wikipedia postings, the more unreliable they become for the truth and more you need to look elsewhere.