How accurate is wikipedia?

[Involuntarily]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
>mostly white
>almost all heterosexual

 

[Subhumancel]

As accurate as the mainstream media.

 

[Sniffles]

Not very. ER used to edit facts off of wiki pages.

 

[Smallondick]

>almost all heterosexual

 

[Blacktarpill]

mostly white

 

[Total Imbecile]

Afair if you look at the discussion page for that article youll find that it is being held hostage by a woman whos the sole person allowed to edit it, I dont know how claiming pages works on wikipedia but thats why its trash, its her page and nobody can do anything about it

 

[Wasteland]

Lol

 

[Smallondick]

Can anyone edit this?

 

[Ap0calypse]

It's literally like letting fucking Pol Pot write an article about the cambodian genocide.

Can anyone edit this?

The female authors of the article made it so you can't

 

[Miscreated]

'Racism' and 'Alt-right'. Lol half the people on here are non white

 

[Total Imbecile]

Can anyone edit this?

No. Some woman has claimed it and is the only person who can approve edits

 

[Smallondick]

Afaik if you look at the discussion page for that article youll find that it is being held hostage by a woman whos the sole person allowed to edit it, I dont know how claiming pages work on wikipedia but thats why its trash, its her page and nobody can do anything about it

 

[AutisticCopecel]

Lol

 

[boojies]

The quality of wikipedia articles varies substantially. Probably about 90% of the content on Wikipedia is high quality. About 5% is of moderate quality, and about 4% is low quality or vandalism and such things; however, about 1% of it is propaganda that is officially endorsed by the most powerful special interest groups with control over it.

For general purpose subjects that are not controversial, wikipedia is pretty stellar. For more technically advanced matters it is rather cursory and due to its common citation of media sources in such contexts it is typically about as accurate as the mainstream media is indeed. However it is certainly not immune to propaganda, particularly with a liberal slant to it, but this is only pertinent in a small selection of controversial articles.

So by and large wikipedia tends to be a good source for general information. For technical areas, it is much more hit or miss and can only be relied on to be of the quality of media reporting for the most part, even as in some cases it is in fact as high caliber as technical documentation -- particularly when you get very specific rather than are general even as still technical. When it involves controversial matters, it tends to skew toward U.S. liberal thought, and includes some liberal propaganda that can be quite thick in some areas of it, such as matters related to sex where it takes a decisively feminist point of view that is oftentimes scientifically untenable.

 

[PersonalityChimp]

https://incels.is/threads/william-g...s-edits-to-the-incel-wikipedia-article.78215/
@leftyincel

How accurate is wikipedia?

Not a lot.

Can anyone edit this?

No

 

[Inceldo]

Its bullshit run by cucks

 

[Deleted member 14866]

It's literally like letting fucking Pol Pot write an article about the cambodian genocide.

 

[Smallondick]

No. Some woman has claimed it and is the only person who can approve edits

so I can not edit things on Wikipedia.

 

[Johny.speiz]

It's far more accurate than Encyclopædia Britannica.

 

[Insomniac]

It was far more accurate back in 2010.
https://incels.is/threads/2010s-wik...more-accurate-and-objective-than-2018s.49712/

Feminist influence ruined it.

 

[AsiaCel]

Most wikipedia pages are fairly accurate and it's a good source for information, political and social pages can be biased.

 

[PersonalityChimp]

Pol Pot

@IntolerantSocialist

 

[Insomniac]

@IntolerantSocialist

Free him

 

[Smallondick]

It's far more accurate than Encyclopædia Britannica.

You just can not trust the most politically correct issues.

 

[Involuntarily]

It was far more accurate back in 2010.
https://incels.is/threads/2010s-wik...more-accurate-and-objective-than-2018s.49712/

Feminist influence ruined it.

Both are bluepilled but at least the 1st is better even though it says "person" and ends that beautiful women can be incel

 

[r9kcel]

Wikipedia sucks for anything controversial. But it's good for factual stuff and basic concepts like historical events

 

[boojies]

Prime example of the shit tier quality of wikipedia is regarding anything related to sexuality, which will be hijacked by the feminists, without the ability for anyone to meaningfully correct them. I've just seen so many examples of this that I cannot even keep track of all of them. However, I can give two pertinent examples, which I saved quotations of even as things have progressed since the time and the current state of the pertinent articles is different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

In humans, a woman's fertility peaks in the early and mid-20s, after which it starts to decline slowly, with a more dramatic drop at around 35.[1]

Was the state of the article when I saved the excerpt from it, which implied that citation one was in support of the notion that female fertility peaks in the early to mid twenties. Citation [1] was to a news article:

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Study-speeds-up-biological-clocks-Fertility-2843352.php

Today's study involved 782 healthy European couples using only the rhythm method of contraception. The women were divided into four age groups -- 19-26, 27-29, 30-34 and 35-39. They maintained daily records of body temperature and recorded when they had intercourse, when they had each menstrual period and the age of sex partners.
There were 433 pregnancies during the study period. Statistical analysis showed women in the 27-29 age group had significantly less chance on average of becoming pregnant than did the 19- to 26-year-olds. Pregnancy rates did not change notably between the 27-29 age group and the 30-34 age group, but dropped sharply for women over 35.

As you can see, for one the group with the highest fertility included 19-26 year olds, but the 19 year old floor of the group was ignored in the phrasing on wikipedia which said that peak fertility in humans is from the early to mid twenties. However, that phrase in itself could never be supported with that citation, as the study was selection biased

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

Selection bias is the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed.[1]

in only looking at females of 19 and older, and therefore cannot be used to make claims regarding the peak fertility in human females, which is in fact at approximately 14.5 year olds.

books.google.ca/books?id=0HqB94NETbEC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4

"Adolescent Medicine: A handbook for primary care"

Female sexual development:

Full fertility is usually reached within 2 years of menarche, between 14 and 15 years of age on average.

Feminists have spammed out their lies regarding peak fertility across the entire internet and even had them regurgitated by ostensible medical experts, and the truth of the matter is rather buried, but I've simply observed the trickery of the feminist propagandists for long enough, and studied sexology and so on long enough, to realize that they are trying to fabricate their own alternate reality.

Another example is this:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_porn

The United Kingdom children's charity NCH has stated that demand for child pornography on the Internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, due to an increase in the number of children abused in the production process.[38]

Note that this wikipedia article incorrectly cites the following article by its click bait headline as opposed to by its content which is contrary to its own headline:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/jan/12/childprotection.childrensservices

Demand for child pornography on the internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, it was claimed today.

Children's charity NCH - formerly National Children's Homes - said there was evidence that the 1,500% rise in child pornography cases since 1988 would be reflected in more children being abused to produce the pictures.

"The scale of the problem has changed beyond recognition in just over a decade," said NCH's internet consultant John Carr.

"The increased demand has made child pornography into big business and the consequences for children in all parts of the world are horrifying."

As you can see they go from saying there was an increase in sex abuse cases caused by the viewing of CP to saying that there was evidence indicating there WOULD BE an increase in sex abuse correlating with the viewing of CP. In reality scientific statistical analyses have determined that there is an inverse correlation between the viewing of CP and the child sexual abuse rate, which supports the substitution hypothesis:

https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children

http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV204 CP possessors.pdf

One concern is that the accessibility of online CP has caused increases in child sexual abuse. Some research suggests that CP may trigger sexual abuse by activating and validating sexual urges in CP viewers that were previously suppressed or con- trolled (Beech et al., 2008; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wilson & Jones, 2008). There is no evidence of increasing abuse in the United States, however. In fact, rates of child sexual abuse have declined substantially since the mid-1990s, a time period that corresponds to the spread of CP online. Statistics from U.S. child protective service agencies show that from 1992 to 2007, child sexual abuse declined 53% (Jones & Finkelhor, 2009), including interfamilial abuse (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006). Evidence of this decline also comes from victim self-report surveys and U.S. criminal justice system data (Finkelhor & Jones, 2008; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2010), as well as the child pro-tective services data collection system. The fact that this trend is revealed in multiple sources tends to undermine arguments that it is because of reduced reporting or changes in investigatory or statistical procedures.

Wikipedia attempted to direct people away from the actually peer reviewed literature (with that springer article, in a field leading peer reviewed journal, being censored by Germany) and to the scientifically refuted mythology of essentially a cult.

These are just two of innumerable examples. I've seen various pieces of feminist mythology on wikipedia at one time or another, including allusions to the mythical booming multi billion dollar CP industry. This isn't from wikipedia but is a great example of the feminist propagandists at work:


A more notable example, from 2015, being the following article from a self identified feminist journalist:

http://www.alternet.org/media/digital-pedophiles-among-us

Booming Cross-Border Business

According to a frequently mentioned statistic, the child pornography industry generates $50 billion every year; other sources speak of a $20 billion industry. In other words, the CAM industry is not a select club of old perverts roaming the web in the privacy of their musty apartment—it’s a multibillion-dollar business of global magnitude, with thriving demand and supply.

Which cites this seemingly evangelical Christian oriented site:

https://azpolicypages.com/marriage-family/protecting-children-from-pornography/

By some reports, child pornography is estimated to be as much as a $50 billion a year industry.[1]

Which cites this paper on feminism:

Gender sensitivity about feminism

...

Another thing that keeps these web sites going is the amount of money that can, and is being made with this business. Some reports show that child pornography over the internet is more than a 50 billion dollar a year business.

Which cites nothing and is just an ipsedixitism essentially, and is known to be make believe by all pertinently versed individuals.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/cop_shop/article_2ee0f064-7888-11df-9e7a-001cc4c03286.html

Some law-enforcement officials contend that disrupting the companies making a profit off child pornography may only be the tip of the iceberg. Matt Dunn, of the Cyber Crimes Center at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau, said that non-commercial child pornography -- images shared without money changing hands -- is more of a concern than the for-profit industry.

Swapping child porn over file-sharing networks is ongoing -- and it's usually non-commercial, Dunn said. "It's happening every second of every day," he said.

Dunn also questions the estimate that commercial child porn is a $20 billion a year industry -- a figure cited in a 2006 congressional hearing -- and instead thinks it's substantially lower, perhaps in the tens of millions of dollars.

ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm

The Spread of Rumors

In 1986 the Senate Commission33 under the chairmanship of William V. Roth, Republican from Delaware, came to the same conclusion as the ILIC report. Nevertheless, neither the Roth report nor the ILIC report were able to dampen the spread of rumors about an enormous trade. Even in 1986, the claims of Lloyd and Densen-Gerber continued to come up as facts in official reports: the Meese Commission, initiated by the Reagan administration to prepare a drastic sharpening of the anti-pornography laws, uncritically took over these claims.34 According to the Meese Commission, Congress had discovered that child pornography and child prostitution "have become highly organized, multi-million dollar industries that operate on a nationwide scale."35 The monthly appearance of 264 magazines (Densen-Gerber) was again reported as truth, alongside the 30,000 exploited children of Los Angeles (Lloyd Martin).

The U.S. Supreme Court took over these claims in their first child pornography case, New York v Ferber (1982), saying that child pornography comprised, "highly organized multimillion dollar industries that operate on a nationwide scale."36 The otherwise dignified court was so upset by the alleged extent of the problem that the solicitor for the accused, Herald Price Fahringer, lost his composure and fled the sitting as fast as he could.37

The claims of Lloyd and Densen-Gerber also appeared outside the U.S.A. The report, Exploitation of Child Labour, which was submitted in 1981 to the Commission for Human Rights of the United Nations, claimed: "In the United States there are at least 264 pornographic magazines specializing in pornography concerning children."38 It was claimed that in 1977, 15,000 slides and 4,000 films of child pornography had been intercepted by the police, which was, according to the report, 5% of the total stock in circulation.

According to the United Nations report, the value of trade in child pornography in 1977 was estimated at $500 million. Such estimates are not based on any kind of empirical evidence, and are easy to refute. If these claims were true then the allegedly intercepted slides and films would have had a value of thousands of dollars each.39 In reality, these films were sold for much less, which can be checked with reference to the advertisement brochures of Deltaboek, publisher of homosexual pornography and literature. From here it is apparent that the Golden Boys film series, produced by COQ in Denmark, cost 85 guilders each, which is about $35.

In 1986, Defence for Children International prepared a report on child prostitution in which they claimed: "Estimates on the number of child prostitutes vary from 300,000 to several millions for the U.S. and Canada."40 A year later these figures were taken over by the Norwegian Ministry of Justice.41 This report was later submitted to the Ministers of Justice of the member countries of the Council of Europe. Within the Council of Europe a report on child exploitation was written in which it was claimed that: "A study of boy prostitutes had suggested that there were 300,000 boy prostitutes in the United States, many of whom are designated runaways."42 The claims of the United Nations report were also repeated. As late as 1988 the Dutch language world development magazine, Onze Wereld (Our World), claimed that: "The American (sic) periodical43 Child Abuse and Neglect reported that in the United States at least 264 different child pornography magazines are in circulation. The kiddieporn stars are drawn from the numerous American runaway teenagers."44 The same article made similar exaggerated claims about alleged illicit trade in donor organs obtained from children killed for the purpose. The story about donor organs had also appeared in the report of the Council of Europe, although there was never any evidence and the story was not credible from the beginning.45

The alleged size of the child pornography trade and the many children said to have been involved, are little more than myths. They are the result of the arbitrary multiplication of arbitrary numbers of alleged victims made by a journalist. The claims had taken on a life of their own. The fact that these claims had by 1980 been rejected by thorough official investigations was insufficient to prevent the claim from reappearing, not only in the media but also in other official circles, including the United States Senate, the United States Supreme Court, a Commission of the American Justice Department, the United Nations and the Council of Europe. After the number had been cited in the Hearings of the House of Representatives, it became associated with an ostensibly reliable source. The fact that the original source was anything but reliable was forgotten.

What the feminist propagandists do is called Netwar Swarming, and it looks like this:

As you can see, it involves essentially Go like formations:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a314073.pdf

The emergence of netwar implies a need to rethink strategy and doctrine, since traditional notions of war as a sequential process based on massing, maneuvering, and fighting will likely prove inadequate to cope with a nonlinear landscape of conflict in which societal and military elements are closely intermingled. In our view, traditional warfare fits the Western paradigm symbolized by chess, where territory is very important, units are functionally specialized, and operations proceed sequentially until checkmate. Netwar, however, requires a new analytic paradigm, which, we argue, is provided by the Oriental game of Go, where there are no "fronts," offense and defense are often blurred, and fortifications and massing simply provide targets for implosive attacks. Victory is achieved not by checkmate, as there is no king to decapitate, but by gaining control of a greater amount of the "battlespace."

And a swarming like formation:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382.html

Networks and Netwars
The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy

The concepts of cyberwar and netwar encompass a new spectrum of conflict that is emerging in the wake of the information revolution. Netwar includes conflicts waged, on the one hand, by terrorists, criminals, gangs, and ethnic extremists; and by civil-society activists (such as cyber activists or WTO protestors) on the other. What distinguishes netwar is the networked organizational structure of its practitioners — with many groups actually being leaderless — and their quickness in coming together in swarming attacks. To confront this new type of conflict, it is crucial for governments, military, and law enforcement to begin networking themselves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarming_(military)

They define swarming, in a military context, as "...seemingly amorphous, but it is a deliberately structured, coordinated, strategic way to strike from all directions, by means of a sustainable pulsing of force and/or fire, close-in as well as from stand-off positions."

A recent example of swarming can be found in Mexico, at the level of what we call activist “social netwar” (see Ronfeldt et al., 1998)

They are in alliance with evangelical Christians:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch7.pdf

Networks, as opposed to institutions, are shaped by decentralized command and control structures, are resistant to “decapitation” attacks targeting leaders, and are amorphous enough to weld together coalitions with significantly different agendas while concentrating forces on a single symbolic target.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

There is something familiar about the tide of misinformation which has swept through the subject of sex trafficking in the UK: it flows through exactly the same channels as the now notorious torrent about Saddam Hussein's weapons.
...
In both cases, the cycle has been driven by political opportunists and interest groups in pursuit of an agenda. In the case of sex trafficking, the role of the neo-conservatives and Iraqi exiles has been played by an unlikely union of evangelical Christians with feminist campaigners, who pursued the trafficking tale to secure their greater goal, not of regime change, but of legal change to abolish all prostitution. The sex trafficking story is a model of misinformation. It began to take shape in the mid 1990s, when the collapse of economies in the old Warsaw Pact countries saw the working flats of London flooded with young women from eastern Europe. Soon, there were rumours and media reports that attached a new word to these women. They had been "trafficked".

Essentially they try to construct and define reality in this manner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_entrepreneur

Social position determines one's ability to define and construct reality; therefore, the higher one's social position, the greater his or her moral value.

Which is actually via the induction of psychotic decompensation essentially:

http://www.healthline.com/health/psychosis

What is psychosis?

Psychosis is characterized by an impaired relationship with reality. And it is a symptom of serious mental disorders. People who are psychotic may have either hallucinations or delusions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4805169/

Finally, we have demonstrated that attention to engaging social stimuli not only activates the DMN but also deactivates the TPN. In a subsequent study[30] it was shown that this pattern of DMN activation and TPN deactivation was present for humanizing depictions of individuals, whereas dehumanizing depictions, which are associated with decreased moral concern, either involved decreased activity in the DMN or increased activity in the TPN. Taken together, these findings suggest that we are neurologically constrained from simultaneously exercising moral concern and analytic thinking.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149989

Engaging social stimuli are associated with activation of the DMN and deactivation of the TPN, whereas analytic problems are associated with activation of the TPN and deactivation of the DMN.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160323151838.htm

"These findings," Friedman continued, "are consistent with the philosophical view, espoused by (Immanuel) Kant, according to which there are two distinct types of truth: empirical and moral."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4140620/

The DMN is involved with processes of self-reflection, social cognition, and mind-wandering. Hyperconnectivity has been noted in the DMN of individuals at high risk for developing schizophrenia.

Whitfield-Gabrieli et al39 studied patients with schizophrenia; young, at-risk, first-degree relatives; and unaffected controls using fMRI during alternating conditions of wakeful rest and a focused working memory task. While the unaffected controls showed predictable deactivation of DMN during active task, the patients and relatives showed diminished deactivation, as well as greater activity in right DLPFC. This finding has essentially been replicated twice by two other research groups.

 

[Swiswis]

Self-identified incels are largely white


LOLLOLOLOLLL

 

[leftyincel]

One of the biggest fights on Wikipedia around the time of Angela Nagles (the only real academic authority on incels pre-Minassian) BBC appearance was whether or not to keep the wikipedia incel article as describing a real life circumstance, or change it to describe 4chan culture (instead of just having a fucking article on 4chan culture and not politically denying that involuntary celibacy is a thing). On Wikipedia, the anti-science folks won and incel was re-labled as a subculture causing Wikipedia to purge and revert citations about inceldom from the journal of sex research and other peer reviewed articles which took the concept of involuntary celibacy seriously from an academic perspective. However, people generally revert citations from Nagles work or appearances on the wikipedia incel article because they cant have anyone sympathetic cited, only criticism.

A Wikipedian admin and public figure with their own website, owns (not just stewards) the incel Wikipedia page as of mid 2018 against wikipedia conduct policy, writing most of the article and constantly reverting unorganized registered users on technicalities about sources like the Donnelly Study, but then allowing those sources to be used later as long as it was introduced by editors this person liked. This persons actions were alerted to Wikipedia's Arbcom team, who told the person submitting the arbcom request to go to ANI. After the person went to ANI, the person was accused of harassment. https://incels.is/threads/william-g...s-edits-to-the-incel-wikipedia-article.78215/. The Wikipedia ANI board, revealed that the only Wikipedia admins or high-profile editors who hadn't given up on the incel article were explicitly and proudly anti-incel, including former senior designer of the Wikimedia foundation (as disclosed on their public wikipediai talk page) Jorm and Wikipedia admin Gamaliel who posted this misandrist and activist banner on int the incel article owners talk page after the Arbcom submission was rejected for review. diff


The degree to which 'anti-incels' are open about their internal Wikipedia activism, shows an internal bias and perhaps an internal coordination (maybe not involving the incel article owner) to keep the article non-NPOV that extends to the very top of Wikipedia, empowering anti-incel wiki editors to be open about their article bias. Which would be remarkable given the encyclopedia has over 5 million articles. But nonetheless it is a hot-topic now.

Wikipedia editor DaveDial threatened a topic ban on gender for editor thylacoop5 despite not having admin privileges after thylacoop5 made the following comment: "The following editors: Dave Dial, Jorm, and GorillaWarfare have recently suggested that this article should primarily focus on misogyny and violence and exclude other topics; with the rationale that this is where media coverage primarily focuses. By analogy, Islamism in the media primarily focuses on terrorism by groups such as ISIS/AL-Qaeda. Yet the islamism article has 14 subsections that do not mention militancy. Doesn't that show that there is a precedence on Wikipedia of broadening the focus?".[3]

Post-Minassian Attack Article Bias/Tone[edit]
Against Wikipedia conduct policy, Wikipedia admins changed the tone of an entire article due to a news event.

The mention of the SPLC article in the intro tries to make all incel communities seem like moral equivalents to the taliban or the KKK, even communities like Incelswithouthate, Incelistan, Braincels, and Love-shy.com. This is political smearing of incels. The intro also makes it seem like most self-identified incels encourage violence, when this is a vocal minority of users on 4chan related sites. There is a negative feedback loop where authors for incel pieces come to wikipedia first, get the notion that all communities advocate violence, write another piece, which wikipedia then cites again as another citation of evidence of incels advocating violence. This is also why anti-incels jumped so hard at the chance to re-write the involutary celibacy article, stuff the entire article with news against wikipedia policy, then move the page when they couldn't change it enough.

Much of this problem with the page lies in the faulty assumption that "incel" is a subculture rather than a life circumstance. Because if it's a subculture than it can only be defined in it's relation to 4chan culture and the PSL scene, when it's usage expands beyond 4chan culture and the PSL scene.

Ultimately, if something has been written about incels in an online magazine like the Huff Post that has an lead editor who still hasn't been fired (but was barred from an anti-suicide organization) for tweeting, "Kill all Men", it will be included in the incel article without much investigation.

The article states, "Self-identified incels are mostly white", a claim many incels find dubious given internal demographic research done by forums has shown their forums are almost or at least half non-white. As well as a peer reviewed study that concluded that incel forums were highly ethnically heterogenous. The mods of incels.is are pretty much all non-white for the record.

Wikipedia editor Wopr wrote on the village pump complaining about bias in Wikipedia articles against Wikipedia policy writing, including the incel article in his complaints:

"Or take, for example, the article on "incel". Again, the lede is excessively long, and a full-on no-holds-barred assault on these people. The lede feels the need to mention, among other minutia, that these people are "mostly white, male and heterosexual"…Specifically mentioning "white, male and heterosexual" in the lede is quite clearly pushing a certain socio-political agenda. Anybody who denies this is either delusional or deliberately lying. Anybody who is even slightly intellectually honest will admit that there is a political message being shoved in there…" --Wopr[4]


Admin Conflict[edit]
In late 2018 Wikipedia admin Acroterion challenged the article owner on the neutrality of the article in the talk section of the article.


-------------------------------
Also heres the public figure wikipedia editor who keeps reverting people to tacit admin approval. (the wikipedia community seems to love to accuse people of harassment, this is not doxxing, stalking, or harassment. He who discloses who he is, including his full name on his public Wikipedia talk page, and uses his public Wikipedia handle as his public Twitter handle, is a public figure subject to criticism, and it takes two seconds to find this public stuff) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jorm

 

[Involuntarily]

@boojies that post was magnificent. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Very good read. @leftyincel thanks, forgot we had our own wiki

 

[Smallframecel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
>mostly white
>almost all heterosexual

Cackapedia