Colleges Recruiting Students to Propagandize Wikipedia

wikipediaA new program developed by FemTechNet and titled “Storming Wikipedia” will apparently hit fifteen universities, including Yale, Brown, and Penn State, beginning this year. The program gives students college credit for writing “feminist thinking” into Wikipedia entries. There are 300 students registered for the course, according to course facilitator Alexandra Juhasz, professor of media studies at California’s Pitzer College. Juhasz explained, “A woman’s point of view or feminist point of view is not yet expressed in relationship to women in technology in Wikipedia. We hope that people engage in this project in respect to other themes as well.”

It’s an audacious idea, focusing on the fact that most of the Wikipedia page edits are made by men – a full 85 percent, by some counts. The goal: “to advance feminist principles of social justice in creating educational models and pedagogies for the future.”

It’s genius.

Conservatives ought to take a page from the feminist movement here. Wikipedia has become a political football, with leftists routinely invading the space to propagandize on behalf of their viewpoints. According to an Oxford University study, the single most-edited page on Wikipedia for English speakers was that of George W. Bush. There’s a reason for that: leftists spammed Bush’s pages, Bush fans fought back, and leftists spammed the page again.

This is what conservatives must understand: the left is interested solely and completely in manipulation of the truth. Leftists will use whatever outlets and tools are most readily available. And the open-sourcing of Wikipedia meets those ends. Because Wikipedia is so high-traffic – it is ranked among the top ten sites in the world – that means that a huge number of Americans get their information on specific political issues and figures from random leftists who spend time editing Wikipedia for free.

Conservatives ought to begin their own effort to impact Wikipedia. It is a powerful tool, and a medium in which conservative have been extraordinarily successful. It is also an area in which conservatives are wildly underrepresented – posts trend heavily to the left on Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia’s approved editors will censor conservatives. If so, that’s a fact that Americans ought to know, too.

Instead of complaining about FemTechNet and company, conservatives ought to do something about it. The truth is just a few keystrokes away.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Butseriously

    Wiki allows First Century Judea to be called Palestine – a historical falsehood. This name was applied to Judea in the Second Century.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks

      By the Emperor Hadrian.

      • Butseriously

        Also why Jesus could not be a Palestinian – Hadrian applied this name 100 years later, in 135 AD/CE.

        • Well Done

          Jesus was Jewish, which would mean “palestinians” are Jewish. No Arabs qualify.

          • Butseriously

            There was no Palestine in the 1st century.

      • Butseriously

        Why is the Vatican confused – why are Christians silent?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Why is the Vatican confused – why are Christians silent?”

          Politics and ignorance.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          You do know that only Roman Catholics follow the Roman Catholic Pope as a spiritual leader I assume.

          • Butseriously

            No impact. The blame rests on all Christians being burdened with these crimes. Critical mass applies.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Then you’re missing the point that there are plenty of Christians that are trying to fight against the Pope’s illicit doctrines and rhetoric.

            Now you’re falling in to the trap of collectivism and you don’t want to go there.

          • Butseriously

            What happened last century was that Britain sold out the Jews and her word before the world. After creating 22 vast new regimes, she went on to carve off 80% of the small land allocated for ‘one only Jewish state’. The 20% was then half desert & half swamp. Not satisfied with this, Britain then issued her White Paper, banning Jews fleeing WW2 from entering in even the 20%. And all Christian countries agreed, slamming their doors shut to Jews fleeing, sending them back in their boats to the camps. France sent 10,000 Jewish children to the camps for extermination. Today, all Christian countries account a 3-state as a 2-state. Christian countries rule the UN – with 4 out of 5 Security Council votes.

            Q: Are Christians sure they want to face a Messiah?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You do know what collectivism is, don’t you? Do you think that God is a collectivist, or more clearly, do you think God teaches man collectivism?

            Do you think that Christians are instructed to take over political institutions? Do you think that authentic Christianity expects to dominate the world politically?

            Political Christianity does not want to face the messiah because they have confused their own institutions with the role of the messiah. And you seem to accept this as valid Christian doctrine.

            You understand the criticisms but not the authentic doctrines and positions.

            Christianity is not alien with respect to the Hebrews and the Hebrew prophets. Christianity is supposed to be Messianic “Judaism” or Messianic followers of the Hebrew prophets.

            The followers of the Hebrew Prophets in Israel were instructed to remain a distinct people and keep their own distinct laws. Christianity teaches that the time has come to bring the law to the entire world. But not as it was to the ancient Israelis. If the messiah had come, would it not be appropriate to consider that some of the law was required in order to prepare for the messiah?

            So if the messiah had come, it’s not insane to think that some of the laws were possibly fulfilled and not nullified because God is a hypocrite or fickle but because they had served their purpose.

            And if the purpose of some of those laws was to create circumstances for the messiah to come forth, and if those laws are no longer needed, this need to maintain control over politics might be one of those changes.

            Or it could be that the role of the Jews is to remain separate not to refute Christians but to retain a coherency that makes a powerful testimony to the validity of the prophets, while at the same time the messianic believers have a role to deliver a different more inclusive message. It could be that God needs both a group to create a strong testimony and one that witnesses to the world by going in to the world.

            Just because God wanted Jews to operate under certain laws does not mean that there is no other plan for the rest of the world. And just because he has a plan to invite the world, because justice probably demands that every human has an invitation, does not mean that those who are accountable for spreading that message must take over political institutions.

            Some who did take the route of political power often cited the Bible as their authority but I believe they did this wrongly. I believe that these people are the ones we can say are mostly responsible for corrupting the Christian narratives and Christian mission.

            At some point you should ask for evidence, but don’t do it until you understand the full scope of the claims. I think that is what leads to premature failure to even understand the significance of the available evidence. You steer yourself in the wrong direction.

            I think you’re angry at the wrong people because you don’t know what the authentic Christian message is. And you do know what all of the classic criticisms are. So it then takes an enormous amount of evidence to deal with all of that. But first you have to get the doctrines and ideas purged of falsehoods. It’s not easy. Without patience it would be very difficult. Start with understanding that you’ve been fed a stream of straw men. Maybe for all of your life for all I know. But so have many who think that they are Christians. That’s probably why God gives us so many years here before judgment. He gives us each time to get it right because above all our job is to find out the truth that he cares most about.

          • Butseriously

            I’m not attacking Christians or Christianity for not following all the 613 Hebrew laws: they were not told to. I don’t believe Christians are sinning if they consume pig. I see these two belief systems as the closest and should walk in parallel, but this has not been the case – a great tragedy. The issue is, why should Christianity & Islam be obsessed over a few cubits of barren land when they are given so much. Why are Christians in general silent of such deeds, calling them as collectivism – a trendy new term.
            The issue of the Hebrew laws stand – all are active & control the world today exclusively. In this matter, Christianity has lost this battle embarrassingly – all Christian countries turn by the Hebrew laws, and there is no such thing as these were applicable yesterday but not any more: which one?

    • Guest

      Wiki doesn’t “allow” anything. Editors have discussed it. If they’re wrong, go present credible sources from authoritative historians and correct it.
      Or is this a leftist conspiracy to mis-describe 2nd century middle east region names for some obscure reason I’m not getting today?

      • http://www.conservativefiction.com/blog/author-pages/ Jamie Wilson

        I agree with this. While the editors are, arguably, personally biased in a liberal direction, they do an admirable job overall of maintaining the site according to strict rules requiring credible sourcing for everything. The real problem is that the credible sourcing is often written by leftists.

        That means working to influence Wikipedia can certainly help conservatives – but we need more writers and thinkers out there to change the credible sources to be more truthful and/or to represent more of our points of view. Comparatively speaking, we have very little control over what actually gets published these days.

      • Butseriously

        Respectfully disagree. No one needs to correct an encyclopedia that says the earth is flat. Fact is, this blatant lie of calling first century Judea as Palestine is seen across the world, in media, by religious clerics and politicians. This is not an error – it is an intentional covert genocidal aspiration from Christians & Muslims obsessed in denial of Israel’s history. The same applies in calling a 3-state in the same tiny land as a 2-state [more than poor maths], and shamelessly silent of Jordan illegally changing the 3,000 year Hebrew name of Samaria to WEST BANK in 1949.
        Such silence is hardly a neutral stand – shame on the Vatican, the UN, the EU, UK, HMAS and all Christians & Muslims. Is it an ironic co-incidence of Londonistan, Paristan & Eurabia happening?

        Where there is no honesty there is no belief or goodness – the first law from Sinai.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “This is not an error – it is an intentional covert genocidal aspiration from Christians & Muslims obsessed in denial of Israel’s history. ”

          You have “Jews” engaged in the same thing, but not as many of them. They’re “Jews” in the same sense that these “Christians” claim the label without actually understanding or believing it.

          • Butseriously

            One does not rely on a few overwhelmed Jews to justify their actions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s not at all a justification. I’m just helping you in case you didn’t consider their inclusion.

            If your point is that they might feel threatened where Christians in the West can’t use that excuse, I’ll accept that too. I’ve made the same point in the past but didn’t remember that one today.

            The real point I’m making is that the “Christians” you talk about have as much belief in the prophets as the secular Jews do. But rational and reasonable fear will keep even more Jews silent than that.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Or is this a leftist conspiracy to mis-describe 2nd century middle east region names for some obscure reason I’m not getting today?”

        Yes. They do it to support their Islamic supremacist friends in the global jihad.

        OTOH, you must never forget that most people are dupes of the conspirators. Otherwise you come up with deranged straw man arguments about how many conscious conspirators there are.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Wiki doesn’t “allow” anything”

        Their policies do allow it. They don’t have professional fact-checkers, but allow popularity and cultural hegemony to rule.

        Then again, professional fact checkers that are not biased are also very rare.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks

    “the feminist principles of Social Justice” – Social Justice, that is the key evil (the central idea of collectivism – that justice is about the “distribution” of income, wealth and so on). Whether it is Socialism, Fascism, National Socialism, Islamism, Greenism (whatever collectivist doctrine we are dealing with) Social Justice is at its core – Social Justice is what must be opposed. The traditional view of justice – that it is about private property rights (to ones own body and goods) must be upheld.

    • Butseriously

      Its the laws which are followed or not followed, more than the ism.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        The problem is when socialists get to influence our laws. Which they do.

        • Butseriously

          is the Vatican a socialist? A Pope who anointed an Egyptian born agent of the Islamic Brotherhood as a Palestinian, when this name came from his own Roman ancestors upon the Jews, is the true problem. We also see blood libels and the Protocols of Zion parading the Muslim world – horrific falsehoods from the Vatican’s backyard – silence here is not a neutral stand. Otherwise good Christians are being loaded with bad baggage.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “is the Vatican a socialist?”

            Very much so. No doubt. They may not realize it, but they’re crypto-communists and publish rantings about “social justice” all the time. I guess they have no problems with coercion still and haven’t read the Bible quite so thoroughly as they should. Don’t blame members for their politically corrupt leaders though. No human is perfect, so the larger any group gets, the more likely it’s power will lead to corrupt leadership when there are no checks and balances.

            “A Pope who anointed an Egyptian born agent of the Islamic Brotherhood as a Palestinian, when this name came from his own Roman ancestors, is the true problem.”

            I agree. I could give you more examples but there’s no point at the moment.

            “We also see blood libels and the Protocols of Zion parading the Muslim world – horrific falsehoods from the Vatican’s backyard – silence here is not a neutral stand.”

            No question about it.

            “Otherwise good Christians are being loaded with bad baggage.”

            True. And it’s tragic.

          • Butseriously

            Most of today’s Christians are fine, good, honest folk. They deserve better. I accept that the bigger they are the more bad can come, applying to all. But the worst post-W.W.2 crime was and remains Britain’s corruption of the Balfour, the serial demands for on-going 2-states in the same tiny land and silence of all Christian countries, even fostering this. It is the cause of the Copts being genocided, all of today’s Islamic terror and UK & Europe being lost before our eyes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The world and its history are complicated. That’s not an excuse for those who know better but rather a warning that there are no simple answers other than trying to find the most effective ways to teach the most salient facts and destroy the most destructive lies. Every chance you get.

            “It is the cause of the Copts being genocided, all of today’s Islamic terror and UK & Europe being lost before our eyes.”

            That’s part of the cost of allowing collectivism to thrive in our schools and discourse. They can’t speak it out loud but many leftists consider this just retribution for “centuries of Christian persecution” when they don’t even know the relevant history well enough to make those judgments. Many people think that until recently that Muslims are historical victims of the Jews and Christians. It’s insane.

            That’s before you even recognize how evil collectivism is.

          • Butseriously

            Islam is emulating the early European church. It is a form of mafioso who exploit religious belief by deflecting elsewhere than itself of all woes. Such was seen by Rome’s emperors who used this mode as a stratagem. It works, but a use-by date also applies. All points to sacred laws being negated and replaced by lawless belief systems. Everything is based on laws, including Godliness and freedom of belief.

            Now we see why laws and nothing else tumbled down from Sinai and what happens in its absence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Islam is emulating the early European church. It is a form of mafioso who exploit religious belief by deflecting elsewhere than itself of all woes. Such was seen by Rome’s emperors who used this mode as a stratagem.”

            There is no doubt that Mohamed was inspired by the many extra-Biblical and anti-Biblical abuses. He called them on it, and then doubled down on the worst abuses. And then went all the way crazy.

            “Now we see why laws and nothing else tumbled down from Sinai and what happens in its absence.”

            You have man’s law and you have God’s law. Man tried to make laws before Sinai. Moses was as far as we know the first to deliver God’s law via text, and it has survived to this day.

            Most people reject Moses.

          • Butseriously

            ‘Most people reject Moses.’

            Actually, Moses is the most revered human of all – by period of time, impact and census – do the math: 14M Jews, 1.5B Muslims & 2.2B Christians revere Moses and depend on what he brought down for their very essence. None can match such stats. The rest of the world is measured by the laws of Moses they uphold or not.

            All 613 laws brought via Moses are active today and the world turns by them exclusively. Don’t believe everything you believe.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But they still reject him even if they outwardly revere him, unless they follow him. It’s not Moses’ fault.

          • Damien Johnson

            I just followed you here because I wanted to say that was a very beautiful reply you wrote to me on another article and it did not go unread.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m glad to see you comment anywhere Damien.

          • Butseriously

            That is a rejection of God, whose laws were frowned upon by Europe and Arabia. This was seen throughout the nations of history, from Canaan to Rome.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That is a rejection of God, whose laws were frowned upon by Europe and Arabia.”

            That is precisely my point.

            “This was seen throughout the nations of history, from Canaan to Rome.”

            Everywhere.

          • Butseriously

            Its a tragedy that had to happen. If another group claimed it, the Jews would also probably respond the same way.

          • Butseriously

            The Quran is surely a lift off of the Hebrew bible & the Gospels: there was no Arabic writing till the 7th century, so there could not have been any knowledgeable reporting. The notion of the Hebrew laws being distorted has been answered to Muslims and especially at this time when Muslims are trying to bring Shariah all around.

            Moses at all times claimed nothing of himself and his name is not attached to any of the Hebrew laws. This despite that Moses’ contribution to humanity is unmatched by any other. Rejecting Moses has to be backed by that country’s institutions operating without the laws given humanity via Moses and remaining standing.

          • Butseriously

            The big problem between Christianity & Judaism is the former does not wish to walk in parallel and instead adopts an ‘our way or the highway’. JC = Judeo-Christianity = two standing adjacent, not one replacing the other.
            IMHO, Jews did not reject Christianity – they merely remained as Jews. Rome’s divine emperors also could not tolerate such an unacceptable premise.

            An omen was soon dispatched to Christians in the form of Islam; the rest is history – a bad one, and pointing only to an assured future disaster thanks to two new non-original religions each claiming exclusive patent rights on the pathway to God.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Isms” are you to confuse people about the fundamental principals of justice. People are always looking for new, modern ways of looking at things to get more from their lives without actually having to make an effort on their own.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Social Justice, that is the key evil (the central idea of collectivism – that justice is about the “distribution” of income, wealth and so on).”

      Social justice is just a stupid deceptive phrase to sell the evils of collectivism while making dupes think we have some kind of modern scientific updated version of justice that’s greater because you can apply it to larger numbers of people. “We’ll get justice for everyone (collectively).” Translation: We’ll get justice for no one.

      Just ask, what’s wrong with justice itself?

  • http://islesofmyst.co.uk/ Raibeart MacIlleathain

    I do tonnes of research to complete my novels, which, despite being fiction, nevertheless must reflect reality. The one site I avoid is Wikipaedia. When anyone can log onto a page and change the “facts” to suit his or her purpose, how can I trust it?

    I do not and, thus, go elsewhere.

    Which explains also why I avoid state-run media.

    • m4253y

      could not have said it any better myself. my daughter learned the hard way after submitting a paper which contained ‘research’ from Wikipedia.

      so, for your and everyone’s benefit, use search filters in Google to exclude what you wish to avoid.

      my daughter loves this feature. (found under search tools & filters)

      cheers

      ex.

      Exclude a word
      -queryAdd a dash (-) before a word or site to exclude all results that include that word. This is especially useful for synonyms like Jaguar the car brand and jaguar the animal.

      jaguar speed -car or pandas -site:wikipedia.org

      Tip: You can also exclude results based on other operators, like excluding all results from a specific site.

    • http://www.conservativefiction.com/blog/author-pages/ Jamie Wilson

      I do tons of research too – and Wikipedia is one of my main tools. It is not a credible reference, but it IS a great starting point for thinking about topics. Perhaps their best tool is the list of links to credible sources at the bottom of most Wiki pages. It’s also very, very good for medical and scientific research, provided you’re avoiding more political subjects like global warming and transgenics.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “I do tons of research too – and Wikipedia is one of my main tools. It is not a credible reference, but it IS a great starting point for thinking about topics.”

        I agree….but…I don’t recommend it for others because most people are too lazy to challenge the sources and find out which lies are allowed to stand.

        I some times use Wikipedia URLs for references but only after I’ve checked the sources myself and too many are needed to make the point. If there are only a few sources needed, I’ll go straight to those. I might vouch for a given page or article, but it’s really the Wild West of the Internet.

        Wikipedia is just another publisher. It’s a little more reliable than say, yahoo answers or something like that because it has a format structured to make it easier to actually check the sources. But if you get lazy, you might easily get burned by liars or just stupid positions.

      • Butseriously

        Remember that calling Muslims as Palestinians is a covert genocidal aspiration. It enters the dna and cannot be undone.

    • Butseriously

      Good fiction is greater than non-fiction. The former is one of the few attributes in which humans can emulate creation. The latter is not of our control. The trick is not to get them blurred – there is no merit in blind belief.

  • http://islesofmyst.co.uk/ Raibeart MacIlleathain

    To clear any confusion, I mean American state-run media.

  • Unc Remus

    If ya can’t impress them with intelligence, Baffle them with BS.

  • guestwho2

    Translation: there’s not enough lefty bias so we’re going to add some more. All in the name of objectivity, of course.

    Google Alexandra Juhasz’s photo and all will be revealed.

  • alericKong

    “It’s genius.”

    Nope.

    It will be blatant and either the wiki admin’s will shut it down, or the college feminists will face the wrath of SA goons and 4chan/reddit trolls.

    This will be fun.

  • Juan Motie

    Conservatives and Libertarians should know NOT to trust anything they see on Wiki unless it can be verified by at least two other independent sources!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Objective sources.

  • Biff_Maliboo

    Do college courses now accept Wikipedia as credible source material?

    • m4253y

      should tell you something, should it not? genius according to Ben, yes, sure.

    • guest

      Don’t know about college courses, but science and courts do.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
      Loads of studies. Main complaint by independent reviewers is readability more than error rate, generally. If it’s good enough that “easy to read” is the biggest problem, that’s plenty good enough for most of your’n everyday inquiries.
      Just sayin’.

  • m4253y

    genius, sure Ben, that’ll be the day!

    can’t wait to see what these so-called feminists write in the sections of islam and its misogynous principals…oh well, maybe they will ‘use’ this wiki platform to further denigrate Christian values, principals, and disappearing norms.

    good luck with…

    • guest

      I’m kinda guessing that the “so-called Christians” and “so-called republicans” here would object to being considered “so-called”. Perhaps the so-called Christians are genuine Christians (though they don’t seem to be, the turning the other cheek is missing), the so-called republicans are genuine republicans, and the so-called feminists are genuine feminists.

      • m4253y

        lol…put that into to your feminist, revisionist theory when you begin to ‘edit’ wikipedia.

        by the same extension of your logic, and your hang up with ‘genuineness’, is the half of a lesbian union that exhibits the ‘male’ characteristics of the pseudo male/female union a genuine feminist or just a feminist?

        pretty complicated stuff…hang on, shaking my eight ball, the answer is bound to come up soon.

        good luck with your trolling.
        cheers

        • Guest

          Are you saying that there aren’t really any feminists, or they are all just “so-called” feminists? Because that’s what “so-called” usually signifies when used disparagingly like you have done.

          If so, you need to reconsider. I haven’t come across a serious reputable academic writer (whether left OR right) who implies feminism somehow doesn’t exist, or it’s just “so-called” feminism. Nobody credible in *any* field is saying that’s so for feminists.

          If you want to imply feminism is a belief that doesn’t exist (against all evidence), or it’s “really” something different and not feminism at all, then say so directly. Otherwise it’s just feminism.

          • m4253y

            As with all generational gaps, perhaps your working knowledge of what is and what was a feminist is glaringly different than mine.

            From my lay understanding, a feminist is derived from the acts of feminism which is, as defined by Merriam Webster

            1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

            2: organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests.

            Now, the feminists I used to know, those with whom I was raised in the same household, their friends, leaders in the movement in pre-politically correct times, they would stand up against everything the misogynous principals of islam portend at every opportunity.

            And where I ask you is the “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests”, against islamists who in their religious zeal wish to squash, at every opportunity the hard fought victories of “political, economic, and social equality of the sexes” won since the suffragette movement from the 19th century through now?

            Yes, I am calling you out for what you are, a phony!

            Rather than come at me head on regarding the impetus of my original statement, glaringly intended to call out the politically correct phonies like you, you responded in pre-programmed fashion. You questioned my Christian values, you questioned republican ethics and yet you slithered right over the subject at hand; if there are feminists who knowingly are practicing feminism, where are they on the misogynous religion of peace? Feminists sold out to political correctness.

            Maybe you will one day “organize activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests”, against a religion, the fastest growing religion in the world and deeply ingraining itself right under our western, and your culturally afflicted noses that;

            1. promotes genital mutilation

            2. promotes pedophilia (marrying girls of ages lesser than 10 to old men)

            3. promotes violence as acceptable punishment for wives

            4. promotes the taking of female ‘infidel’ sex slaves under jihad

            5. promotes the death of lesbians
            6. promotes the stoning of women

            shall i go on? where in Christian values, morals, ethics, faith is any of this practiced upon women in this day or any other?

            Yes, so-called feminists. True feminism would be out screaming from the roof tops at this and so many other barbarous atrocities perpetrated by the ‘religion of peace’ AGAINST FEMALES.

            Yet, you want to imply that feminism is a belief that does exist? Is feminism only to be practiced in specific global regions and within specific cultures/religions and other notable regions and cultures/religions get a pass? Is it not hypocritical of feminism that leaves women of islam in the dust? At the very least, should feminism not be at the forefront in western culture speaking out on islam and its brutal subjugation of women.

            One day, you and others who sadly believe that within your ‘sheltered’ western universe that you are immune to the terror of islam will be rudely awakened. Have a look at the rape statistics in Norway, Sweden.

            So, rather than troll here, rethink your Wikipedia feminist onslaught to perhaps challenge the real threat. ISLAM!

            That was my comment’s intent.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Are you saying that there aren’t really any feminists, or they are all just “so-called” feminists?”

            Labels are often used to deceive. Some times we deceive ourselves.

            “If so, you need to reconsider. I haven’t come across a serious reputable academic writer (whether left OR right) who implies feminism somehow doesn’t exist, or it’s just “so-called” feminism. Nobody credible in *any* field is saying that’s so for feminists.”

            There’s not really clear consensus on what feminism really is. So it’s not that anyone says it doesn’t exist, but that we don’t necessarily agree with many who use the label that the label is honest or accurate.

            “Otherwise it’s just feminism.”

            Even if there was consensus about what feminism is, using qualifiers is fine because it allows the speaker to express that there is a feeling the label is still somehow deceptive. The speaker objects to the label. Why is that hard to understand?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Sure, in theory it could be anything.

        That’s why we focus on objective analysis to answer those questions and it’s also why personal accountability is so important, so that we create incentives for people to care about doing that analysis and care about getting it right.

  • Guest

    It’s all leftists!
    And of course this site couldn’t possibly be described as all rightists :)

  • James Foard

    Agreed, And instead of complaining because a university forced a Christian club to accept non Christians into leadership positions in their organisation, we need to take the football and go on the offensive. Lets organise Christians to invade the territory of the enemy. Let’s have Christians join the atheist club, the LGBT club, the muslim student’s organisation; and tell them straight out “Hey, I’m straight and I believe in traditional marriage”, or “Hey, I believe that Muhammad was a crackpot, but I wanna join your club”, “C’mon, what about inclusiveness?”
    They can’t very easily say no; after all, if they forced a Christian organisation to abandon their charter and their cherished beliefs, then how can they deny a Christian entrance into the local Atheists Against Christianity club, or whatever it is. C’mon, let’s saddle up and ride into the camp of the liberals and give them a taste of their own medicine.

    • Race_Dissident

      That’s a fine idea, but do you really believe Leftists won’t use a double standard to thwart this tactic? You’ve got to understand something: Leftists have no scruples, and their only principle is to win. The rules they create are for the other guys, not them.

  • Wikipedian

    They won’t have much success in writing feminist thinking into the German Wikipedia, for one, because it is already all there. The one article which I noticed really bugs radical feminist is “Feminazi” – quite obviously because it holds the mirror up to some of them.

  • Donnie McLeod

    So if Islam is the problem what is the solution? As Isael security services know tactics such as mass arrests fail without a sensible strategy to end hostilities.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “So if Islam is the problem what is the solution?”

      Fight lies with objective facts. The more we do this, the more we restrain tyrannical ideologies. Tyrants have to lie before they gain hegemony.

      “As Isael security services know tactics such as mass arrests fail without a sensible strategy to end hostilities.”

      Liars empower the other liars. There are too many liars selling too many lies without being challenged directly.

      That’s why the future must not belong to a POTUS that says the future must not belong to those that slander the prophet of Islam. Or his supporters or his party.

      The strategy for each of us will depend on specifics, but in America we need to get our arguments straight and support Israel’s fight for justice in opposition to the lies. That is the most salient battle today; in Israel.

  • RCraigen

    This is a pretty good observation, Ben, but I wonder if your prescription will solve things. Is there not another response that will be more effective, than becoming the enemy? The problem I see is that overzealous manipulation of the message by political actors can ruin their message and turn the general public against them. Even when it is truth-bearing. That is precisely why the conservative alternative media is hamstrung in reaching the masses with their message. It is not that we present a false story or unfairly manipulate a true one — it is that we work with the narrative at all. If I link here, for example, the dismissive response is “Oh, that’s FrontPageMag … consider the source” with a lot of nudging and winking. Implied or explicitly stated, “far right”, and of course that means anything in it is completely unreliable, and probably the opposite of the truth.

    Already Wikipedia has this reputation; at best conservatives can further discredit the source by turning it into a catfight, but the best possible result is to neutralize it. You’ll never gain ground there by engaging (merely) in editing wars.

    The trick, I think, is the Breitbart basic specialty (which I know you specialize in personally): take the legs out from under the source by exposing its bias and bullying nature.

    Thus, the information in your story here is the right idea. Yes, conservatives should fight to correct false narratives in Wikipedia and elsewhere. There should even be a concerted effort, and many young folks looking for some way to contribute to the battle ought to consider making this a personal crusade. But what I’m saying is that it is not enough. That is only damage control.

    The key is to expose the narrative manipulation. Put it on billboards all over the world. Make it obvious that big brother is doing thought control. Give Joe Public the tools to evaluate what he reads online, so they go to Wikipedia and the first thought is, “Hmmm, let’s see if we can discern where this writer is coming from” — and that they have good templates for detecting the progressive/liberal bias elements.

    That is a much bigger project than you envision. Wikipedia is a good place to start, but I’m warning that simply mirroring the leftist methodology is liable to leave conservatives playing an endless game of catch-up against the hordes of leftist drones. Instead, immunize the population.

    And a priority for conservatives on wikipedia is NOT to replace leftist propaganda with conservative propaganda. PLEASE don’t do this. We need to develop and maintain a robust, deserved reputation for truthtelling, shooting from the hip, and reliability. And simultaneously to discredit the progressive narrative manipulators.

    So what is the priority? I would start with swarming Wikipedia to exhaustively detect lies, distortions, spin and weasel wording. And use the Wiki tools to flag them ALL. Consistently. Every single one. And those with time and the requisite gifts should go into the talk pages and battle them out, one meme at a time.

    “Disputed” flags should go up all over Wikipedia, and they should ALL be disputes of leftist distortion that is evident to all. This way Wikipedia will become our first line of defence, because it will help educate the masses by giving case study after case study of leftist manipulation, carefully dissected by intelligent conservative editors.

    Also, it will make it more obvious to the Wikipedia bosses how badly the LEFT (not the right!) has subverted the medium. While leftist interests dominate in the current editorial community there, there remains a strong core whose highest ambition in life is to provide a valuable source of information for humanity. By challenging every Leftist manipulation, EVERY time, you will be demonstrating to them the scale of the assault on what many of them uphold as a high ideal. Wake the sleeping giant of senior editors at Wikipedia and let them decide how to handle the leftist manipulators. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think it is still possible to appeal to their idealism in this way. At worst, by flagging all these pages you’ll be putting up educational roadmarks for unwary internet surfers looking for the straight goods.

    Finally, for those looking for tactical advantage on Wikipedia, here’s a tip (I’m not an editor, only an observer): when an edit war gets sufficiently heated, the senior editors “LOCK” a page to prevent further edits until the thing gets resolved. So for some time whatever happens to be on the page will be protected, and will be the only story visitors to the page see. So the question is: Do you want YOUR message to be found, along with flags and warnings that it is under dispute? Or the LEFT’s message? This is a question for the tacticians, I don’t pretend to know the right answer, and it may differ issue by issue.

    But the fact that these leftists are making this move so openly is a huge tactical advantage for us, and we should use it correctly. Simply getting on the bandwagon and copying the method will not suffice (I know, Ben, this is not your meaning — I’m just trying to lay it out in clearer terms because I’m afraid that is how some will take it…)

  • herdgadfly

    WIKI reviewers are all liberals. That is why posts that reflect conservative principles and viewpoints never survive. As long as progressives control our culture, conservatives will suck the hind teat. We don’t need gimmicks, we need control.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    witipedia?

    What I think is….

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Now, the feminists I used to know, those with whom I was raised in the same household, their friends, leaders in the movement in pre-politically correct times, they would stand up against everything the misogynous principals of islam portend at every opportunity.”

    Oops. Maybe there is more than one “feminism.”

    • m4253y

      i believe ‘was’ in the past tense perhaps, but today, not so much.

      you would think that with titles such as

      “2,000 Mutilated Girls Sought Treatment at London Hospitals”

      would be a rallying cry from ‘feminists’ to the front lines.

      but, as it is with those whom i readily believe should be described as agenda driven sycophants, they are no more feminist to feminism as ice is to fire.

      the islamists suit their agenda perfectly as it is they who do their bidding in the destruction of the Christian based value system of the west.

      odd how they do not take their show on the road in the mideast decrying all that the misogynous principals of islam has to offer.

      nope, not only is there not a whiff of one form of feminism, their is in fact, none. dodo bird.
      cheers