Original. Student reported. Your daily dose of Right-minded news and commentary from across the nation
Feminists Upset After #YesAllWomen Wiki Page Edited For Accuracy

Some editors tried to make the entry more precise and less biased, but #YesAllWomen hate being corrected

In the wake of the UCSB shooting, feminist activists hijacked the narrative surrounding the shooting by creating the hashtag “YesAllWomen” – which collectively allowed Twitter users to share their thoughts on the plight of being a suppressed woman in today’s society.

Very similarly, feminist activists are now attempting to hijack the way in which the shooting, and #YesAllWomen, is remembered online, by editing and re-editing the #YesAllWomen Wikipedia entry.

This editing and re-editing has become somewhat of an edit war, with well over 100 prior versions of the page since its creation in late May that document multiple changes back and forth.

Some citizen editors claim they are trying to make the site less biased through their edits.

“Edited article to be slightly more NPOV,” one editor remarked. “It’s still kind of a giant pile of feminist propaganda, though.”

Another quipped: “…yep, more misandry. Humanity stupidity is a bottomless well.”

Misandry is a hatred of men.

Those edits and similar ones did not go over well, as the ultra-feminist website Jezebel first reported, even insinuating men were behind the changes:

“Over the past several days, several individuals (presumably men) have made multiple attempts to edit the Wikipedia entry for #YesAllWomen in order to make it less ‘misandrist,’ ” according to a June 6 article. “A few users have made edits to the article to debate the facts of the Isla Vista shooting.”

“For instance, take (the) changes that call into question the motivation behind Elliot Rodger’s shooting and allege that the #YesAllWomen hashtag ‘ended up being used for misandry.’ ”

The notion that Rodger was insane as opposed to misogynistic did not fare too well on the page.

As recently as June 15, the page states: “After the killings, some commentators claimed that the killer was mentally ill, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression.”

“Claimed” he was mentally ill? This despite the fact that growing up, Rodger had seen psychiatrists, taken psychotropic medication, and a month before the rampage had the cops called on him by his own parents to check up on his mental instability.

Nevertheless, feminists do not deny the misandry or bias of #YesAllWomen. In fact, the #YesAllWomen Wikipedia page itself has been labeled within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, which is “a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia.”

With that, the biased tone of the entry is valid, some editors argue, in order to combat the more “neutral” points of view. As one editor explained: “Actually this whole article is about the reaction to what are considered gendered killings, so no, it’s no undue.”

But just how did #YesAllWomen get its start?

According to Mashable: “The tag originated on May 24 in a Twitter conversation involving writer Annie Cardi (@anniecardi) and another woman who has since changed her account to private to protect her identity, Cardi told Mashable. Cardi says she was the second person to use the tag (after her friend) and sees herself as a supporter of the phenomenon rather than an originator.”

What started as a Twitter conversation between friends, quickly spread worldwide.

By May 25, around 61,500 tweets had included #YesAllWomen. Most tweets came from the U.S. and U.K., but some came from countries with more obvious and gruesome women’s rights violations like Pakistan, Indonesia and Qatar. Women around the world have used the hashtag to recount everything from work place harassment to violent rapes.

However, if women have it so bad here in the U.S. in 2014, perhaps feminists would be better off focusing their time on the “war on women” and less time on the “war on Wikipedia edits.”

College Fix Contributor Lauren Cooley is a recent graduate of Furman University.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Floyd Brown/ Flickr

Add to the Discussion

  • Frankly I have given up on Wikipedia because of feminist bullying and inserting their way into every narrative with ideology rather than sticking to facts.

    • Mike Hunt

      Yep. Wikipedia is a joke. No one should consider it an accurate source for ANYTHING. The entire concept behind it is a failure.

      Everytime I visit it and I see it’s doing another donation drive I think, “ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND????”

      Not a chance.

      • Bewildered

        When propaganda is mistaken for education and your sick fantasies for reality then it’s a dangerous symptom of cultural insanity.
        The amount of attention paid and the credibility given to this hysteria over inanities is incredible and disgusting.

        • johnmburt1960

          “When propaganda is mistaken for education and your sick fantasies for
          reality then it’s a dangerous symptom of cultural insanity.”
          I take it you are referring to the PUA culture in which Rodger was steeped?

      • Incubus

        I belong to an academic mailing list for a separate interest of mine which is unrelated to feminism. This mailing list is mostly populated by university professors and researchers in academia. They have all previously told me that Wikipedia is a poor source of information, and should not be relied on. Not surprisingly, their own mailing list is not currently listed on the Wikipedia page for this topic, despite it being fairly well-known in this field, and containing mention in a few different books and peer-reviewed journals on the subject.

      • Manuel de Moustache

        wikipedia is actually fantastic for most things. I hope you don’t think encyclopedia Brittanica is much better.

        • Mike Hunt

          The difference is that Encyclopedia Britannica cannot be edited at will by intellectually dishonest ideologues with an agenda.

          • Manuel de Moustache

            They are similar in that regard.

    • Bewildered

      Feminism and facts ? You must be joking !

    • Cenobite

      I actually use Wikipedia. I look up the subject I am interested in then scroll all the way to the bottom, and look at the references. Then I read those, and start looking for all the different information I can. I don’t use what’s written on the page it’s self. If the references are crap I start looking again from some other place. That’s one of the things I like about AVFM, all the reference links to data.

      Wikipedia is like a bog, once you get below the surface you can find some useful things. Just need to use the digital hip waders.

      • Mike Hunt

        Actually I should add that I do find Wikipedia useful for information about casual pursuits. If I want to know about sea turtles, Wikipedia generally gives me what I need. But on any topic that is even slightly controversial? Fuggedaboudit!

    • Andrejovich Dietrich

      When was the last time a Feminist agenda was based on facts? Some time in the early 80’s right?

      • Mike Hunt

        Try never.

    • HiddenFemHistory

      I could revise history. In between each line about a rich dude, I would write ”And his spoiled rotten wife scolded the negro servant for not bringing her wine and filet mignon fast enough.”
      or ”His wife shopped for the finest silk garments, in a demanding condescending manner to the un-empowered salesgirls, and bought a new slave boy, forcing him away from his sister.”
      or ”He whistled at me, and I had him lynched”

      • Cenobite

        That reminds me of an interesting thing I witnessed once. I was helping a friend get some things from a Navy PX (I think that’s what they call it,) He was moving into a new place, and had just got his B.A.Q. (Basic Allowance for Quarters,) funds so we were on base getting food, and what not from this place. When I noticed a couple of women arguing in a check out line.

        As I listened to them because we were in a different line. I found that they were arguing over who should be in front of whom. They were trying to determine their order in the check out line based on their husband’s rank. When the one woman managed to win out with a Lieutenant Commander’s rank she moved ahead of the other then started the same debate with the next woman. That one ended it because not only was the woman ahead of her the wife of a Commander, but it seemed he was the X.O. (Executive Officer) on one of the ships in port.

        Just an interesting experience.

  • Ofcourse feminists are uninterested in dealing with the truth as they are incapable of doing so. It is a well known fact that when ANY feminist speaks, one can be guaranteed that lies will follow. Neither honesty or integrity exists and zero dignity is the standard identification, behaviour and thought processes of any feminist.

    • Andrejovich Dietrich

      I don’t believe a feminist when she says “Good Morning”

      • Coming from a feminist, it would be an insult. There would have to be some other meaning attached or angle taken for them to even be pleasant or to even bother speaking to a member of the opposite sex. Meanwhile reaching for that sexist, bigoted feminist meme list they have learnt verbatim. They truly are a completely obnoxious bunch of bigots. (see RadFemHub for examples)

  • Hysterical and totally predictable. Because posting something on the Internet is, like, totally just like actually going out and doing something productive.

    • Mark

      In a way it is though; when changing perceptions and ideas any form of communication is productive and the internet is a form of communication the same as any other media. And since almost every interest group in the world uses the internet for this purpose which one precisely do you intend your comment to be picking at? The editors at Wikipedia, the journalists at Jezebel, the journalist who wrote this article or the commenters on this article which includes you and, now, me?

      • If you saw it from my perspective you’d understand. I see it every day in my Facebook postings: women whining and commiserating about abused/abandoned animals yet when pressed all they do is post on the Internet about it – NEVER actually leaving the safety of their homes to go outside and DO something about it.

  • Katie

    So what’s the story here? That Wikipedia pages get edited and there’s often disagreement about what is the “right” version of events? NOT NEWS.

    • Matthew Lane

      No, the story here is feminists hate when people point out there bigotry, even as they are being bigoted. This particular example is the equivalent of someone assaulting you while screaming “IM NOT ASSAULTING YOU!”

      • Andrejovich Dietrich

        Or my personal favorite “Not to be a bitch”, than starts being one.

        • karen straughan

          I have a friend at work, and she often prefaces a given statement with, “I’m not trying to be cunty here,” and I finally put up my hand and said, “If you have to say you’re not trying to be cunty, chances are, you’re being cunty. Not that I mind. It’s entertaining. Just FYI.”

  • politicalcynic

    “The biased tone of the entry is valid, some editors argue, in order to combat the more “neutral” points of view”

    Because neutrality is a “bad” thing now? Because it is appropriate to have an organizationt that holds itself out as a reference source be NON-neutral? Umm-that would make it either (a) a biased media outlet; or (b) a propaganda machine.

    In either case, the fact that their debating over whether they should have push-back against a “neutral” point of view demonstrates, once again, that Wikipedia is worthless as an actual reference.

    • karen straughan

      According to “feminist ethics”, “partiality” and “particularity” are preferable to “universality” and “impartiality”, which are “patriarchal concepts”. Or something. To me, it sounds like another way of saying, “it’s only fair when you treat women better”. Or in the parlance of the fashion industry, “bias is the new neutrality.”

  • scarlet pimpernel

    Liberals seem to have “all the time in the world” to write and re-write on Wikipedia; maybe they should get a job, instead of living on welfare. They steal our money, then they insult us.