leftyincel
UNCONTROVERSIAL TO THE POINT OF MILD BANALITY
★★★★
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Posts
- 794
Could write pages on this but this is what it boils down to:
The people that do virtually all of the edits on wikipedia are only about 1,500 people. Those of that 1,500 people that form roaming cliques of content policers are only in the hundreds. This is less than a small sized Facebook group and they all know each other. They edit millions of pages together with their bots. They effectively function as the world's most influential editorial board.
After the Gamergate debacle on Wikipedia, admins were given free reign to ban people who posted stuff on gender that they didn't like based on technicalities they don't enforce hard on themselves or others. And the Gamergate people didn't exactly leave a positive taste in their mouth. Also, manosphere people generally don't have academic representatives to help facilitate more Wikipedia-citable content.
The Incel wiki article is monitored by many admins, none of whom have any sympathy for late virgins, and many of whom are openly 'anti-incel', and have posted that they are openly 'anti-incel' on Wikipedia without anyone complaining about them pushing an agenda against site rules. The admin in control of the page is an admin who has worked for many years on Wikipedia, including the ArbCom board. This admin has lots of admin friends and everyone seems to know and respect the admin interally. Before this admin took control of the page, some people in the small group of active Wiki editors got the "involuntary celibacy" sociological article taken down on the basis of "involuntary celibacy not being real". Ignoring academic work on the subject and basically just agenda pushing.
The is the beginning of a conscious shift on Wikipedia to put incels in a box that can be labeled and finger-wagged at. By labeling incels as a subculture instead of an academic concept. There were many MSM news articles made that treated involuntary celibacy as a real thing this year and not a subculture. But now wikipedia admins have decided it's a subculture and the center of that subculture is basically this forum's culture and Elliot Rodger.
In a sense, by defining all incels as 4chan culture, Wikipedia and a few media outlets are trying to make anyone that complains about being an involuntary virgin on the internet to carry all the baggage 4chan culture has.
What can we do about this?
Keep in mind that the posts you make on this forum are important and will now unfortunately reflect on all male virgins. Serge seems to very much want this site to be the #1 forum based on his edits to the incel wiki linked on the top, which isn't unusual for any form owners. So if this forum will remain the most influential forum, the culture of this forum is going to continue to have downstream effects on all male virgins, the posts on this forum need to be more thought out. That or find a way to bury the incel Wikipedia article in SEO legally.
The people that do virtually all of the edits on wikipedia are only about 1,500 people. Those of that 1,500 people that form roaming cliques of content policers are only in the hundreds. This is less than a small sized Facebook group and they all know each other. They edit millions of pages together with their bots. They effectively function as the world's most influential editorial board.
After the Gamergate debacle on Wikipedia, admins were given free reign to ban people who posted stuff on gender that they didn't like based on technicalities they don't enforce hard on themselves or others. And the Gamergate people didn't exactly leave a positive taste in their mouth. Also, manosphere people generally don't have academic representatives to help facilitate more Wikipedia-citable content.
The Incel wiki article is monitored by many admins, none of whom have any sympathy for late virgins, and many of whom are openly 'anti-incel', and have posted that they are openly 'anti-incel' on Wikipedia without anyone complaining about them pushing an agenda against site rules. The admin in control of the page is an admin who has worked for many years on Wikipedia, including the ArbCom board. This admin has lots of admin friends and everyone seems to know and respect the admin interally. Before this admin took control of the page, some people in the small group of active Wiki editors got the "involuntary celibacy" sociological article taken down on the basis of "involuntary celibacy not being real". Ignoring academic work on the subject and basically just agenda pushing.
The is the beginning of a conscious shift on Wikipedia to put incels in a box that can be labeled and finger-wagged at. By labeling incels as a subculture instead of an academic concept. There were many MSM news articles made that treated involuntary celibacy as a real thing this year and not a subculture. But now wikipedia admins have decided it's a subculture and the center of that subculture is basically this forum's culture and Elliot Rodger.
In a sense, by defining all incels as 4chan culture, Wikipedia and a few media outlets are trying to make anyone that complains about being an involuntary virgin on the internet to carry all the baggage 4chan culture has.
What can we do about this?
Keep in mind that the posts you make on this forum are important and will now unfortunately reflect on all male virgins. Serge seems to very much want this site to be the #1 forum based on his edits to the incel wiki linked on the top, which isn't unusual for any form owners. So if this forum will remain the most influential forum, the culture of this forum is going to continue to have downstream effects on all male virgins, the posts on this forum need to be more thought out. That or find a way to bury the incel Wikipedia article in SEO legally.
Last edited: