Those who care about women must challenge the widespread dissemination of disinformation. Most of the press cannot be relied upon to do that.
A little more. The latest Wikipedia version of unisex public toilets is a far cry from the edits I originally made. You can see the battles reflected in it as you read it.
You can also log into Wikipedia, creating an account, and then look at discussion on the talk page.
A common tactic is for the biological sex-erasers to ask for citation support for even obvious points that they do not like, while accepting statements they favor without requiring support.
Another common approach is to claim “bias” when they disagree with a point. They want the article to fit their world view. So they add a bunch of points in their side without really trying to keep balance.
They marginalize folks
and views with whom they disagree to make it appear only a small number of outcasts feel that way.
and views with whom they disagree to make it appear only a small number of outcasts feel that way.
Some of the complaining folks have been so misled by fake scholarship, they cannot believe it is untrue.
Some editors are associated with activist groups. Since you do not have to identitfy your true self on Wikipedia, those acting as representatives of such groups’ interests can participate as such even though they are not supposed to.
There are groups that hold mass editing sessions. Some teachers have even given class credit for Wikipedia editing sessions. Such tactics are not limited solely to this issue.
Style complaints is a common way of limiting discussions. For example, when content cannot be challenged, an editor might say, this is not in the Wikipedia style. Yet they cannot point to a stylebook that verifies that; “style” is merely a straitjacket to suppress the view.
There are honest editors but many are naive about what is going on. When someone asks for “support” they rarely ask “Is there support for the contrary view as well?” And by suppressing scholarship in the larger world, misinformation peddlers can say, there is no published view.
Another factor contributing to disinformation is the number of scholars afraid to address issues, even when they know the information is wrong. They fear the purveyors of misinformation will target them-as they have others.
My point is that Wikipedia is a political battleground where mass spreading of disinformation is a common effort. This is happening on a host of subjects in the platform—but the most serious challenges seem to relate to history, law & politics and health-related sciences.
Dealing with Wikipedia edit battles is time consuming and I am thinking there has to be a better way of pointing out errors and misleading content. Despite knowing the large margin for bias, a lot of people go there for quick content. Any ideas?
