Wikipedia Turns Against #GamerGate

What’s the first thing you do when you’re looking for an answer to any question? You Google it, of course. And which website regularly has its page with the answer in the top three search results? Can you guess it? It’s Wikipedia. Try it out. Type a random word into Google and you will most likely get a related Wikipedia page in the top three results. Most people don’t bother scrolling down the page, let alone flipping through pages of search results, and just click the wiki link.

Because Google’s rank algorithm gives more weight to pages people click on from search results, Wikipedia over time got unprecedented power to shape the public opinion on any topic imaginable by being considered a source of solid information. But, Wikipedia is free, isn’t it? And the information seems to always be carefully sourced with links beneath the article. So what’s the problem? Well, there is a laundry list of them but the biggest one is the low retention of editors.

All pages on English Wikipedia are edited and maintained by a relatively small subset of entrenched editors who hold admin power and can ban users and delete their contributions at whim. The core principle should be to always base the articles on information found in reliable sources, but the definition of a “reliable source” is left to the consensus. This simply means that admins form cliques and will back each other up against the outsiders, no matter what. This drives away all dissenting contributors and leaves only the most hardcore editors. And what do you think happens when Wikipedia gets to cover GamerGate?

Exit, facts

wiki gamergate article

Every word is pulsing with weaseldom

The above paragraph manages to get absolutely everything about GamerGate wrong. First of all, the reason for GamerGate was that, when people mentioned the trivial scandal of Zoe Quinn whoring herself on Reddit and various forums, they would get hit with a nuclear banhammer. This would prompt others to start talking about Zoe Quinn and “hey, why did that other thread get banned?” which resulted in more censorship and more people getting curious and furious. The peak was hit with the “gamers are dead” articles. Then the GamesJournPros list got leaked, the collusion of gaming press was made public and the ball rolled downhill from there.

If there is a culture war, it was started by SJWs in a desperate attempt to force a paradigm change in video games culture. Just like Hitler foolishly believed Russia was rotten and would surrender on the first day of blitzkrieg, SJWs thought a series of pompous articles would destroy the misogynerd culture once and for all.

SJWs would usually not resort to such overt tactics as publishing articles that call for the end of gamers, but that’s because they ran out of patience and got too arrogant. SJWs are simply not prepared for the level of persistence and ingenuity gamers possess and this is the war they are definitely going to lose.

Enter, bias

wiki gamergate article 3

Six sentences, three uses of the word “misogyny”

Ironically, this paragraph invokes the “damsel in distress” trope, the very one Anita railed against in her video series. We are supposed to feel sorry because Anita Sarkeesian was “harassed,” which was actually just criticism of her work. The problem arose because Anita touted her work as academic and actually wanted it to be used in gender studies. A defining characteristic of academic work is peer review, which freaked Anita out, because SJWs are not used to being questioned. In other words, if you can’t deal with critics, simply paint them as harassers and misogynerds. And don’t forget to turn the comments on your Youtube channel off!

It’s interesting to point out that damsels in distress were saved because fertile women had only one advantage over men—they could bear children. Because female SJWs are mostly not interested in bearing children but still clamor for the female privilege, we should probably think twice before coming to aid of witches such as Anita or Zoe.

Take my lip piercing

Zoe Quinn omfg

Zoe Quinn is so HOT

The above picture of Zoe Quinn from the GamerGate article on Wikipedia was not originally present there. In fact, there was a much more neutral picture of her in a gaming convention, but Zoe herself intervened with the Wikipedia admin that was favorable to the SJW cause and, sure enough, the picture was promptly changed.

The admin in question, RyuLong (translated as “DragonDragon”), actually got himself in a lot of trouble because of his bias over GamerGate article and there is even an ArbCom (Arbitration Committee) case over it. In short, ArbCom is a nerd tribunal that talks fancy words but mostly has no teeth and will probably decide to give RyuLong a slap on the wrist.

Even Jimmy Wales, the daddy of Wikipedia, chimed in and tried to silence GamerGate supporters:

jimmy wales twitter 1

No donation for you, Jimbo!

We’re off to never-never land

Surprisingly enough, this Wikipedia article has had an opposite effect—people become curious about GamerGate and start investigating on their own, which usually brings them to the closer realization of how deeply infiltrated our society is with SJW ideas and zealots. The bias and obvious weighting of the article has ended up working against SJWs.

Wikipedia was originally envisioned as quasi-anarchist “encyclopedia everyone can edit.” While it is a noble goal to collect and organize the sum of all human knowledge, nobody accounted for the psychology of humans. No matter what kind of structure we create collectively, someone will want to control it.

Since Jimmy Wales has effectively removed himself from the hierarchy in Wikipedia and has no say in what happens behind the closed doors, we have no ultimate recourse to slander against GamerGate. In the end, Wikipedia is plagued with systemic problems that will sooner or later bring it down. It will be a sad day but it was doomed to fail from the start.

Did you like this post? Read more #gamergate news on Reaxxion, ROK’s little brother. Click here to visit.

133 thoughts on “Wikipedia Turns Against #GamerGate”

  1. I just have to vent this out.
    Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Heck, as much as I hate and detest academians, but even I have to agree with them when they would tell students that citing Wikipedia is not considered as an official or legitimate source.
    One of Wikipedia’s affiliates- Wikirational, really is a joke. It is radical leftist liberal bigotry propoganda garbage machine, that attacks anyone with a conservative or libertarian view. It is dangerous radical site that attempts to smear and damage the reputation of anyone with a legitimate opposing view to the liberal bigotry that is spread across our society.

    1. Wikipedia is good as a first word in terms of natural science, math and technical subjects. But for politically charged subjects, it shouldn’t be relied upon.

      1. I got into an edit conflict on Wiki on political subjects before, people were purposely putting wrong information because it suited their political view. Fucking pissed me off.

      2. The problem with communists is that they politicize EVERYTHING. I give it at most a decade until differential equations become charged with political undertones.

    2. “Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Heck, as much as I hate and detest academians, even I have to agree with them when they would tell students that citing Wikipedia is not considered as an official or legitimate source.”
      It serves only as a jumping point in research only, but requires always all data to be verified. Unfortunately many people just accept the information as gospel.

      1. Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, Vine….
        I present to you, the modern day enlightened and well informed millenial.

        1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. with a lower rate of error than encyclopedia Britannica.
          you’re not supposed to cite any encyclopedia in any academic report.
          Jesus Christ guys. get it together.

      1. LOL.
        I will NEVER consider Wikipedia to be accurate. Sorry, but when anyone can edit this encyclopedia, it screams “be careful when using this.”

        1. You discredit his random opinion because he’s just ‘some guy on the internet’ while extolling a website that is built by random opinions by ‘some guys on the internet’. You canceled yourself out.

      2. “”In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.””
        Wikipedia has 33 percent more errors., according to your cited study
        Although it wasn’t a study, it was a “investigation led by “.

    3. The radical social scientists keep hindering the work of academics in the hard sciences. I am sick and tired of seeing real scientists hated and slandered because of the idiots in political science and sociology.

      1. I hate to have to tell you this, but the academics are, for the most part, the ‘radical social scientists’ now.
        Most of the ‘legitimate’ academics and ‘real’ scientists were driven out decades ago. EVERYTHING the scientific community produces today has to suit the social scientist agenda or the ‘real’ scientist involved will lose their job, their reputation, and in many cases their life.
        There are no ‘good’ scientists. not any more.

        1. As someone who is around these individuals, I have to tell you, you are completely incorrect. Of course you have no data, experience, or facts to back up your assumptions, the mark of every incorrect rationalist throughout history. Denouncing and labeling other people does not make you more intelligent than them.
          Roosh is a microbiologist, I suppose he is a radical social scientist as well, hmm?

        2. It has nothing to do with denouncement or labelling. I am around these individuals, primarily academics, and many of the best teachers I know (Including my own stepfather) were fired or ‘released’ because they wished to teach their students the subject they were supposed to teach, rather than revisionist politics.
          The ‘good ones’, the intellectually honest ones or the ones that chose to present fact to the best of their considerable ability, have long since been replaced by political animals, to the point where the entire American educational system has become a hollow shell filled to the brim with ‘polical’ educators and socialist partisans. It needs to be removed or replaced.
          Try giving the ‘as someone who has been around these individuals’ line to someone who will fall for your bullshit. If you have a home in academia today, you are a liberal.

        3. I remember my organic chemistry teacher talking down to the political scientist types for being unscientific and the author of my biochemistry book denouncing the notion that there is a genetic basis for equality between the races and to keep ideology out of science. It may just be where you live, but making vast generalizations without any information and then cherrypicking experiences to match your bias is what I expect a social scientist to do, which you are doing right now. I will not respond to you again, because, like racebaiters accusing others of being racist and feminists accusing others of being misogynist, you are trying to get me to defend a negative, which has been and forever will be a tool of those who lack the willpower to garner real knowledge. Have fun being a victim.

        4. I live in Utah right now, and as of the last ten years virtually every teacher that refuses to toe the ‘party line’ has been fired. Including my own stepfather, before his death. The social scientists have set their sites on utah, one of the last conservative holdouts, and will not be content until every one of the children is a diversity-pimping hippy.
          a vast number of cases is NOT ‘cherry picking’ in any meaning of the word. When a majority of teachers have to teach politically-slanted education, it is not cherry picking. When textbooks definitions of amendments are being changed in order to invalidate the right to bear arms for individuals, it is not cherry picking. When homosexuality is being taught as ‘normal’ behavior in the schools of a predominantly christian population, it is not cherry picking.
          I will freely admit that I am racist. not ‘race supremacist’, by any means, but I will admit that the concerns of my own subspecies of humanity (at least, those of the ones that my skin color apparently has lumped me into, despite having a huge assortment of different races in my geneaology) are more important to me than those of other humans that conflict with my own well being. Any other attitude is suicidal.
          But taking your ball and going home does not win you any versaity after your spurious claims that academia is basically a bunch of good guys thinly coated by a veneer of liberalism.

        5. I have never encountered politics or have been forced to discus or change my views in any biology, chemistry or physics class I have taken, but I have been publicly shamed in an abnormal psychology class for trying to bring neurobiology into the discussion. What you are talking about was attempted by my university lightly a few years ago, when a climate chemist was made head of the department, but he was replaced when he failed to produce reproducible results, showing how effective the scientific method is in correcting for this bullshit. I am sorry that is happening at your university; that is, and I am sure many of the chemists at my university would agree, a miscarriage of science that flies in the face of the principles of empirical methods, but know that what is happening to you is not the case everywhere and such measures to control discussion are not in place. I would suggest not to create new enemies with such generalizations when you are up against such a zealous enemy.
          I do not believe caring about your family before the welfare of others makes you a racist. The idea it does is ridiculous; a person who believes such a thing would put strangers before their own children, an act I would consider dishonorable and evil. People who abandon those who depend on them for vain, self-serving ideology like progressivism deserve hatred. I am not a liberal; far from it, I was raised in a conservative family by conservatives, both my father and grandfather who where company executives before they retired.
          I believe in empiricism before any other system of epistemology; the rationalists that comprise the social scientists in my university tend to think coming to a conclusion and then selectively gathering information is “science”. Me and my fellow biochemists have a good laugh about their idiocy and deeply flawed experimental methods during lecture if they come up.

        6. Well, it is lovely that you manage to occupy such a sane academic society. Considering how rare I have found such to be, do you mind sharing the name of such an enlightened academic community? Right now my children’s choices range from ‘BYU’ to ‘insane state college that does nothing but indoctrinate young adults in entitlement, white guilt, men are all rapists, and slut culture.”

        7. I have worked and studied on a number of University campuses across australia in the past 20 years and the degree to which the social science’s control general university policy does vary. In the better ones the Hard Sciences have disdain for the social sciences and guard against any infringement from that section. They also tend to have better research and applied science divisions and better reputations nationally and abroad.
          In others all academics and most men are very guarded and almost fearful because the ideologues from Social Science and Gender Studies hold power. In these the institutes the research tends to move off campus to affiliated centers where the true sciences can take shelter from the insanity. They tend to embrace a few promising students and focus on deprogramming the post graduates, they also tend to have compulsory courses held in the social science areas for all university students, either in cultural diversity or gender sensitivity. As a student in these keep your mouth closed, nod and write want the lecturer wants you to write then get on with your course with your sanity in check…

        8. Australia was hit by social justice harder and faster than the US, but it is a much more recent phenomenon. I suspect it will also burn itself out more quickly as well (Australia is showing signs of turning against the liberal narrative already)

        9. I wouldn’t mind them preaching evolution at schools if only they didn’t tell people it majickly stopped at the neck in humans.

        10. if you really think about it, christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I mean, god made the world in seven ‘time periods’, why wouldn’t he have used evolution to do it?

        11. There are no ‘good’ scientists. not any more.

          Not true. They do exist, they just don’t exist in large numbers in Academia, if they ever did.

        12. and some vegans still sneak a hamburger occasionally.
          finding exceptions doesn’t invalidate a generalization. That’s left-think.

        13. An exception doesn’t invalidate an average.
          But an exception does invalidate a universal claim.
          If you’ll note my comment said, “Looks like your argument that they have ALL been replaced isn’t true.”
          While it is arguable whether or not your original argument was a universal claim or a claim as to the average, my comment nonetheless responds to the interpretation of it being a universal claim.

        14. As was made obvious by my reply, I was making a generalization.
          making a universal claim, ie ‘all men are rapists’, is simply begging for an opposing example, thus it would be illogical to actually make a truly universal example, because among the 7 billion people on earth surface, you can find everything from an XXY to a human that looks like a tree.
          However, the claim that ‘almost all’ have been replaced loses emphasis, because almost all can mean anything from 50.111- percent all the way up to 99.999- percent.
          Obviously, in my experience I have not met a currently-employed ‘professor’ who does not practice consistent hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in order to preserve their academic standing, or I have met a great many intellectually honest teachers who have been released from their employment due to their inability to embrace the propaganda currently being labelled as ‘education’.
          I am not in the habit of qualifying every word I say, nor of inventing percentages, and I do not intend to preface every word I say with a qualifier nor to attempt to justify every experience I may comment upon.
          If that is you problem, then with all due respect, go fuck yourself.

        15. I hate to have to tell you this, but the academics are, for the most part, the ‘radical social scientists’ now. (Average claim)
          Most of (Average claim) the ‘legitimate’ academics and ‘real’ scientists were driven out decades ago. EVERYTHING (Universal claim, everything=all) the scientific community produces today has to suit the social scientist agenda or the ‘real’ scientist involved will lose their job, their reputation, and in many cases their life.
          There are no ‘good’ scientists. not any more. (Universal claim)
          This was you original comment that I was replying to.
          It is easy to see that in some cases you are making universal claims and in other cases you are making average claims.
          Therefore my refutation of the two universal claims with the link I posted was on point..
          making a universal claim, ie ‘all men are rapists’, is simply begging for an opposing example (they are called counter-examples), thus it would be illogical to actually make a truly universal example (the concept of a universal claim is actually a cornerstone of Logic, see, thus it can hardly be considered “illogical”), because among the 7 billion people on earth surface, you can find everything from an XXY to a human that looks like a tree.
          I am not in the habit of qualifying every word I say, nor of inventing percentages, and I do not intend to preface every word I say with a qualifier nor to attempt to justify every experience I may comment upon.
          (If you do not see the point of clarity in your communication then don’t get your panties in a bunch everytime someone points out a flaw in your communication.)
          If that is you problem, then with all due respect, go fuck yourself.
          (The fact of the matter is you made a universal claim, you made that claim a prominent part of your argument by CAPITALISING it, and then when someone refuted that claim you went into hysterics claiming you don’t need to qualify every statement you make. Well guess what, the term EVERYTHING is a qualifier, a negative, NO or NOT is a qualifier, your making of a universal claim, and my addressing of it, has nothing to do with your lack of qualification but with your improper or wrong qualification. It is not my problem, it is yours.)

        16. Hysterical? Methinks you may be projecting. Frankly, I am tired of liberal freaks with essentially no argument trying to argue facts with semantics. This conversation is done.

      2. The radical social scientists ARE the academics
        Not in the sciences or business perhaps, but pretty much everything else is filled with equalist scum

        1. They are the ones who try to tell everyone else what to do. I think I said this to someone but I tried to bring up how anxiety and fear have the same neurochemical basis and was shamed and cutoff midsentence for “being a very understanding young man” in an abnormal psychology class. Passive aggressive, unscientific, illogical idealists. We should discard the vast majority of them. What makes this even more hilarious is that the case study was some fat chick with an anxiety disorder and the professor was an indian male.

    4. The problem with Wikipedia is that it has become overly bureaucratic in the form of “community consensus” and reputation clout. This leads to oversocialization, and oversocialized spaces always lead to leftist infestation, until it becomes a rat’s nest of opinion policing and social status whoring.

    5. Yeah, I made the mistake of trying to edit the rational wiki entry for Islam to make it as snarky and offensive as the one on Christianity (I added the infamous Bill Mahr quote to the beginning). The edit lasted all of 5 mins before some Libtard reverted it for “islamophobia”. I agree with your assessment 100% and will add that there’s nothing rational about that Wiki.

      1. You made the mistake of thinking they are anti-religion. They aren’t. Study up on Critical Theory and what was an apparent contradiction will make perfect sense.

        1. First Google hit is Wikipedia article on “Critical Theory”. So I guess they are only critical against Western Civilization. Everyone else gets a free pass.

        2. The animating force behind liberals/marxists/leftists/SJW’s/Feminists etc is that they are anti white, anti male, anti patriarchy.
          It is the intersection of their aggression.
          All human organisms compete against the ‘other’, and white male patriarchs are their other, their outgroup. It is that simple.

    6. I also noticed Wikirational is exactly the opposite of rational. The articles are filled with ad hominems, lots of poisoning the well, etc. All you have to do is read the Wikirational article on the Manosphere to see what I mean.

    7. You know it, and I know it, but for 99% of people, when they want to find something out, they Google it. And the top result is usually Wikipedia article. So, they click it. I mean, Google can’t be giving us wrong results, can it?

  2. Funny you mention that because the related term of sea-lion ‘ing’ isn’t yet founded on Wiki. Although Google brings up the comic strip and animal rights supporters just fine. Guess it would be hard to spin sea lion jokes into reverse misogyny when the comics clearly represent SJW as people and their antagonists as animals. Solid article.

    1. The reason the sea-lion meme misses the mark is that it’s a swipe at people pretending to be polite when they are actually being aggressive.
      Thing is: manospherians are not pretending to not be aggressive. SJWs don’t get this – don’t get that it’s possible to fight and not back down within a structure of courtesy and agreed-upon behaviour.

      1. We tried being polite once. It did nothing but cost us ground.
        The new red pill is abrasive, aggressive, and unapologetic. You call us misogynistic, we call you a useless cunt. You call us a racist, we call you a stupid nigger. You call us homophobic, and we call you a diseased faggot.You call us a rapist, we tell you to spread your legs… we have become injured to the unfounded insult, and let it roll off rather than silencing us.
        Accusations of ‘intolerance’, ‘bigotry’, and the like simply have stopped fazing us, because for too long the slightest hint of dissent was met with scornful shaming language. We simply don’t care, and in many cases proudly wear the labels instead of ducking for fear of being labelled.
        Politeness is reserved for humans.

  3. I recommend people who survive on donations to distance themselves from blithely condemning entire groups of people. I recommend people who claim their website is factual to avoid misrepresentation of facts and political bias.

      1. I was condemning Jimmy Wales’ statement on twitter by switching the words around. Jimmy Wales shouldn’t concatenate his personal feelings and his work. He is doing his website a disservice and all who have contributed there a disservice by making such politically charged statements on twitter. I have no doubt, if allowed, more sensible minds will correct the article or at least call it out for bias. If Jimmy doesn’t allow editing to correct the facts, he is worse than I thought. I can tell you the website gives a mostly accurate overview of scientific information, but like many sources, tends to be a bit outdated, like textbooks. Good for a first look, at least.

        1. Thanks for the clarification. Didn’t know who this was directed at. My ‘whut’ was in reaction to the mealy-mouthed passive-aggressiveness, (which I thought might have been directed at RoK), but I’m guessing that it came across that way from the original quote you were parodying.

    1. Was disappointed to read their erroneous entry regarding cultural marxism. They also disparage Roosh and Heartiste, I believe. Wonder what they think of HBD studies.

    2. Oh my god this is the most honest and painfully true entry ever written, the second paragraph had me hooked:
      “The gaming media refused to apologize, accept accountability, or in any way commit to adherence to any kind of higher standard of journalism which would (at least) include not sleeping with the subjects of their articles. Instead, they placed all the blame on the gaming community, concluding that their audience is now their enemy. This was done to ensure they could continue fucking desperate game devs, as this is the only pussy these shills will ever be able to get.”

  4. All social media basically worthless for anything but propaganda battles between ideological camps. The algorithms are designed to amplify your own biases.

    1. Don’t worry, Google will donate more than enough money to Wikipedia to keep them afloat. The main reason Google rose to popularity was because it served Wikipedia and vice versa.

    1. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I repeat, edited by anyone.
      That in itself, should scream the words “proceed with caution” when using Wikipedia.

      1. Not true in any real sense. Go ahead, try and edit Wikipedia. SOME people can edit Wikipedia and have their edits stick, most people can’t. The question then becomes what property divides the ones who can edit from the ones who can’t. Marxists.

  5. The feminists did a good job making a big deal about the “death and rape threats”, as though that isn’t a daily occurrence on blogs and twitter everyday. They know how to be aggressive and withdraw it and return to “damsel in distress” mode when they’re getting pummeled back. They played the media, so unless you were deeply paying attention to gamergate, you were probably gonna side with the feminist.
    If there’s one thing that we learned from #UVAHoax, is that a consistent and near stoic focus on facts and tough questioning will eventually have the feminist to lose in a media war and gain support on the side of any male issue, even from the guys who aren’t deep enough in the red pill.

    1. Ironically, the vast majority of online death, rape, and violence threats that have been tracked are from women.
      Yes, Women threaten to rape other women. Not because they are going to carry out the threat (God forbid!) But because it is a method used to frighten others into silence.

  6. Wikipedia has had a dishonest lefty bias since… well, forever. It’s just that with Gamergate more people are noticing it now.

  7. Rupert Sheldrake has also suffered from hostile editing from these ideologues. They are organised and ruthless and are only there to push an agenda, Wikipedia’s days are numbered at least in the current form.

    1. I’ve been a DMOZ editor for 10 years, if you have any real evidence of any editor demanding bribes then report it using the system in place at
      Every report is investigated but 99.99% are utter bollocks from people who want a listing but can’t read the website submission guidelines correctly.

  8. I wouldn’t say people were blind to something odd going on with the gaming press in regards to feminism and the like, because even from the outset Sarkesian met massive pushback from gamers with her articles several years ago. The gaming media’s reaction is when people began to wonder about the various editors and “journalists” because for the most part they stuck up for Sarkesian and attacked their readers/customers for the audacity of not eagerly slurping up her nonsense and asking for seconds.
    However, with the whole Quinn scandal and then later with “Gamers are dead.” and then the final revelation of Gaming Journo Pros we finally got confirmation of what many had suspected, which was that these guys were colluding with each other and fundamentally shared the same ideologies and showed extreme hostility to those who didn’t share that viewpoint.
    Ultimately, I think Gamergate–for the internet–is a major turning point. Political Correctness has run rampant online, and for a long time, nobody really fought against it. Until now. When the SJWs drew the battle lines, they didn’t realize that so were their opposition. And the opposition were a lot more pissed off than they realized. And now it’s spilling outside of gaming and into other areas of media. People are tired of this shit and fighting back now. We’ve seen victories against our enemies in GG, and now in the media with the exposure of rape hoaxes and the like.
    If Wikipedia is foolish and doesn’t at least maintain some facsimile of neutrality, then they are going to ultimately suffer the same fate that these other organizations do when it turns out that they were on the wrong side of history.

    1. You are on to something. I think it all started with John Romero and his “Will make you his bitch” ad for Daikatana. This is when gamers realized that something fishy is going on and the bubble has been growing ever since.

  9. They (wiki staff) also attempted to merge the Frankfurt school/cultural marxist pages with the Frankfurt school conspiracy theory page. That was revoked last I checked.

  10. I’ve donated $100 to wiki every year since 2011. Guess how much I donated this year? $0. I will never donate to wiki again. I discovered their bias early this year in other circumstances. They are biased and it’s not even funny.

  11. In order to have “turned against” GamerGate, they needed to have been at least neutral from the get-go.
    There is ZERO indication that was the case. From the beginning, the GamerGate article has been a slam festival of SJW pandering. At no point did it even approach neutrality. Its continued reliance on single source reporting and the San Fran blogger scene ensured this.
    Worst of all, Jimmy Wales has been mostly unresponsive to this. When he has intervened, (for example, when he told ryulong to stop editing the page due to his clear bias), he was ignored. Then he made public statements that since GamerGate is associated with harassment, it was tainted (which is just an echo of the accusations “journalists” who were accused of nepotism leveled at their own readership).
    I have no expectation of Wikipedia returning to anything resembling neutrality in the future, particularly on this issue. There are activist administrators moving through topics and actively changing content to suit their political slant, and Wales doesn’t give a shit. Time to let it go.

    1. Even Judaism had been hijacked by the evil Jesuits to turn them AGAINST other religious people, and also atheist/irreligious/antitheist people…

  12. Wikipedia suffers from the same disease that any “information source” suffers from: once an SJW believes that a certain topic must be slanted their way, they will stop at nothing to make it so. If they cannot do so, the next best tactic is to flood the airwaves with so much disinformation about the subject that contradicts the truth that it becomes impossible to tell truth from fiction.
    While the internet and cable news has allowed a variety of alternative viewpoints, the SJW’s tactic has been to do both: take over “respectable” sources and flood the interwebs with falsehoods to undercut/drown out those telling the truth.
    The SJW tactics are no different from old-school communistic propaganda; in facts, SJWs are just communists under a new name. The Michael Brown/Trayvon Martin criminal incidents being just recent examples. The Nakoula Nakoula/The Interview incidents being examples on different topics.Anyone who thinks the lies the SJWs repeat ad nauseum about those issues are spontaneous and NOT coordinated by an SJW Journolist/centralized source are in need of some red pilling.

  13. Wikipedia is just a messenger. Virtually anyone could edit any entry on wikipedia, so it is not surprising that any of the SJW’s must have edited the Gamergate entry.
    For less than half the time it took the writer to write the above article, he could have simply changed the entry on Wikipedia. Again, complaining is not the way to go. It’s tit for tat now.
    So, rather than castigating Wikipedia, I suggest someone–anyone–logs in to the website, and set the records straight.

    1. the article has been changed, numerous times. The editors keep returning it to a fantastically slanted version.
      It will likely at one point be allowed to return to a legitimate status, but that is likely to happen long after gamergate is no longer an issue… much like Thomas ball’s article was only permitted after the furor of his death subsided.

  14. One of the more interesting things about GamerGate is firstly, how it shows just how foolish it is to put the commons in the hands of private interests; and secondly, how the people affected by this don’t see that.
    The reason those reddit threads got erased is that reddit is owned by reddit, and they have a perfect right to do that.

    1. sure they do, and the gamergate individuals have a perfect right to continue pushing boycotting among advertisers. And reviewers have a perfect right to slant their reviews towards whomever they are fucking or who is buying them cars and lobster dinners.
      Gamergate is not about legality, it is about ethics. And Reddit’s censorship bluntly flaunted the fact that their ethics are not in favor of much of their customer base, and in fact, like Kotaku, they have an enormous amount of disrespect for those who’s click-throughs fuel their money stream.

  15. When I started doing research on GamerGate I, too, started with Wikipedia. I knew it was far from credible as soon as I detected a slant in favor of the SJWs. I still cannot for the life of me why all these was started over an ugly slut like Zoe Quinn. If she took care of her body, didn’t color her hair, lost the piercings and tatts she’d be a 6 at best. I’m still scratching my head over how this chick fucked her way into a great review for that sad excuse for a game.

    1. God yeah. When I first heard about Zoe Quinn and saw her picture, I was aghast that there are men out there willing to jump into bed with such an ugly monstrosity. Goes to show you how thirsty some men can be…

      1. Note that all of Quinn’s gentleman callers were from the gaming industry, an industry mostly run by sexually frustrated nerds. This is one of the main reasons Feminists target the gaming community; pussy has more leverage there.

  16. I consider Wikipedia to be part of the MSM now and the reality is that unless we do something to either silence the MSM or to get them on the side of the red pill, we are constantly fighting a defensive battle in the Culture War.

  17. I’m a school teacher and the first rule of using references from the “interwebz” is never use Wikipedia. It is precisely the thing mentioned in this article that explains why Wikipedia is never, ever to be used as a source of information. Unfortunately, so many in our society develop their first inkling of understanding from Wikipedia. The SJW political/ activist class is aware this.
    If there were a proper way to use Wikipedia then such a way would make skepticism the filter through which to use it. I try to avoid Wikipedia, especially on topics that are discussed widely within the popular culture. If you must use Wikipedia, then use it as a place to gain “terms” and “tags” for additional searches to find both primary sources and scholarly articles. For example, a Wikipedia article on “algebra” should only be used to perform additional searches on persons credited with developing this field of math. In other words, use Wikipedia to get leads but nothing else. Often you’ll find these “leads” to offer better information. In the case of “Gamergate”, using a healthy skepticism will lead you to read both sides of this topic rather than to be completely shaped by the bias, and sometimes ignorance, that Wikipedia is often accused of.

  18. Wikipedia is volunteer-run. Volunteers are people, who are unreliable plus have their own reasons and biases for what they do. Connect the dots. They ain’t paid to be “fair and unbiased”.
    Like anything by consensus, a bunch of people who “don’t like facts” can very easily downvote it into oblivion. If doesn’t even have to be internal.
    While it is good that this is exposed, we can’t necessarily blame the administrators. The poor bastards have built up a reputation, yet even the highest can be trashed by enough negative social pressure. That pressure has been applied by the SJWs – face it, there are more of them no matter how you slice it.
    (Fuck I feel like a weasel for saying that.)
    From this vantage point, it was inevitable that Wikipedia would cave. Not like it gets a billion dollars a year in no-strings funding. Not like some non-profit trust gives it its lifeblood. It’s all purely socially-sourced and that can easily dry up.

  19. Why not eliminate wikipedia? What purpose does it serve other than having all the answers to college students in non-STEM fields? lol.

  20. Wikipedia was against gamergate in the first place
    If you spend enough time on it you’ll notice that most of the “regulars” are left-leaning, and getting worse by the year
    That’s why Wikipedia can no longer be taken seriously on political topics, it’s become infected with equalism
    And either way there’s no shortage of simps in the media who will latch on gamergate as sympathy story, meaning that equality apologists will have more notable sources to use as ammunition – so the problem is really from the grounds up, Wikipedia’s bias is only a symptom

  21. A very good article. It’s a shame how wikipedia has been increasingly hijacked, largely on political and historical topics (as many of the scientific ones are excellent although even there I note some involving women scientists are seeing political bits entered), by the left but it was perhaps inevitable. As soon as something is no longer a pure anarchy there will be some structures and rules and different groups will attempt to control and manipulate them.
    Perhaps worse than the way in which it might exhibit blatant bias though is the way wikipedia becomes an echo chamber for parts of the media. I can give an example from the UK. A professor called Mary Beard was invited on the most popular political TV show and basically made a fool of herself, dismissing the concerns of the working and middle class audience at the current immigration rate of 6-7 million per decade. She couldn’t have made herself a better parody of the out of touch, wealthy and ignorant liberal.
    She was torn apart online on so many blogs and forums. She clearly spent a long time trawling through every forum where anyone criticised her and would search out any rude or unpleasant writing. There was a particular site called “don’t get me started” (it has since closed down because of the issue, Mary Beard taking to the internet with others to mock the fact the man running it was an ordinary man with a regular job). I read it at the time – there were dozens of very well written explanations about why she was talking utter rubbish. A few used rude language. And one decided to superimpose a picture of a vagina over Beard’s face on a photo. Not very gentlemanly but just some oddball in the darkest corner of an obscure website hardly anyone read. 99.99% of the criticism was very fair and polite. Mary Beard found out about it and decided to throw a big tantrum to try to deflect the legitimate criticism. She called in all the media elites on the cultural left such as the BBC and the Times and had everyone know she was the “victim” of “abuse”. Having shown herself to be exceptionally thin skinned a few others were rude about her on twitter and there was even a comical “bomb threat” which Beard herself admitted didn’t make her have any fear as it was obviously a joke.
    Now every time a newspaper columnist, especially those on the cultural left, refer to Beard they will just add in “who suffered terrible online abuse” and things like that. And of course wikipedia reports it, listing it as “considerable” abuse when it was no such thing. However it all becomes some huge echo chamber with the left wing media happy to have another “victim” to show how much “misogyny” there is in society and Beard is happy to have people afraid to criticise her. The BBC even made a programme claiming that this woman, a Professor at Cambridge University who is often invited on the most watched political show, was symptomatic of women being “silenced” by “sexists”. And all down to a couple of oddballs in some obscure forum.
    Wikipedia acts as a nice way to tie all this together, linking to any articles that just uncritically report what they are told. Nobody posts an article explaining that it was all a fuss about nothing. And if you were to go on there and add in that many people think there was no issue and Beard was blowing it all out of proportion you would have your entry removed immediately as you won’t find a BBC or Guardian journalist saying that.
    It’s a pity as wikipedia could be much better. I hope in time there are other serious competitors who try different approaches to editing and who gets to decide what stays.

  22. The men on this site can start their own version of this site; facts only, no opinions. The name? Dickipedia of course. Being a dick isnt necessarily an insult!

  23. Wikipedia has been political for years, just like Google, Reddit, and all other sources of news or commentary. They tightly control what is reported, what is considered news, and what is considered factual. If it doesn’t fit their narrative it isn’t reported, it’s removed, or its denied. You can’t really trust them with science either because science has become political. Science s a billion dollar lottery now. Whoever does the most lobbying wins the most cash and prizes. There’s nothing objective about it. The only thing I use wiki for is to see what dates my favorite shows were on so I know which episode to download. I see their continual begging for donations to keep their site going and I laugh. Pay for political donations? I think not.

  24. From my experience in college, you cannot cite Wikipedia for the exact purpose that it can be edited by anyone. Red pillers understand that within sjw communities, truth is subjective and contextual (– e.g. drunken gangbangs that turn into rape claims as means to escape being labeled a skank. )
    As normal means of fact checking become corrupted, the educated will have to resort to Google scholar, jstor, ebsco and the like. Unfortunately, colleges also take up the cause of SJWs, Feminazis and fraudulent wolf criers.

  25. One look at that shot of Quinn and I actually feel sorry for the guys who though tagging that was some kind of accomplishment.

    1. At least Shagging Sarkeesian would have only required duct tape. Quinn would require duct tape, a blindfold (for you), a paper bag (for her) and a pair of wire clippers.

  26. While wikipedia is a great source of knowledge on geography, biology, physics and technical sciences, it’s articles on social sciences and social issues can be deeply flawed and one-sided. Same thing with articles about history.

  27. “infiltrated with SJW ideals and zealots” .. maybe people who truly believe that its progress?

    1. There’s a difference between truth and “progress.” So many are willing to throw truth to the wind in the name of “progress.” Reality cares nothing for ideals.

      1. “Reality” is also constructed .. the ‘ideals’ people have regarding progress have been integrated into society slowly. Take for example racial integration, universal suffrage etc. all were ideal at one point.

    They simply hate honesty, work, truth, and other manly values. And, oh yeah, they have the reins of your media, your government, school system, history books, encyclopedia, grants, money system, and laws. It is a forever up-hill battle. Get used to it.

  29. I’ve found Wikipedia to be generally accurate. Where it is not, I will often update / correct it. Wikipedia is crowdsourced information. Now, the collective wisdom of the internet is a powerful thing. However, you must balance it with the fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica paid historicans and authors well to research and write deep, accurate, and interesting articles, where Wikipedia is left up to mostly computer nerds with free time.
    I think the answer is to actively go on Wikipedia and call out or correct these problems. Does an article sound one sided? Flag it for being biased. Is there incorrect information presented? Edit the article. Just be accurate and factual, and do not let your opinions or biases come through in your writing. But whatever you do, don’t attack the messenger. We *ARE* the messenger. Take action!

  30. Rational Wiki’s gamergate article is even more hilariously pathetic than the official Wikipedia entry on the subject. Jimbo Wales really needs to get control of his site and stop pandering to the social justice communists.

  31. Wikipedia is not the end all be all of research. It should be taken as a cryptsheet and a questionable one at that, depending on whether the wiki article is still in the “open” phase. (edit enabled)
    I lrecently ogged in to wikipedia to add some more information about that pig Teresa Sullivan regarding her despicable olympian level toss of the UVA fraternity under the nearest double decker bus. Not surprisingly, an hour or so after i did everything i wrote had been removed.
    The way it looks now makes it seem as though she had no involvement whatsoever in the UVA fracas.

Comments are closed.