Kevin Gorman: “entitled” Wikinerd
Days ago W.F. Price drew a comparison between lionized solider Lei Feng, who died in service to the Communist regime in Maoist China, and the world’s most dedicated Wikipedia editor.
Justin Knapp, an unemployed thirty-year-old, and supposed basement-dweller, dedicates several hours a day to editing Wikipedia. The former pizza delivery guy hasn’t earned a penny for the over one million edits he’s made. In all likelihood the dude hasn’t fondled a breast since Seinfeld was on the air either. And that’s deplorable, because a person with such a high level of tenacity would be able to find a paying gig in a society that wasn’t transforming into a compost heap.
With social outcasts on the brain, I am reminded of a runt who sold his brethren out for femaWiki brownie points. I’m speaking of Kevin Gorman of course, the Gollum-like nerd that spearheaded an attack on Wikipedia’s men’s rights page due to the lack of “reliable” sources.
The following timeline is dedicated to latecomers and big-picture types. Salient bits about the clashes between the MRM and a faction of Wikipedia editors are here for your perusal.
Note: As of this writing the men’s rights page still hasn’t fully recovered from this concerted effort. In addition there are no Wikipedia pages dedicated to prominent MRAs such as Bernard Chapin, John the Other, Paul Elam, Angry Harry, etc.
Thomas James Ball Wikipedia page deleted
June 24, 2011
John the Other ranted:
To you who belittled the pain or the sacrifice of Thomas ball:
To the members of the media who wrote this man off as a lone nut, or a deadbeat dad:
To the reporters and editors who made decisions not to mention this in your publications and broadcasts:
To ideologues who continue to dismiss the brutality and scorn heaped onto a man until he felt nothing except the agony of his body consumed by a gasoline fire he ignited himself:
And to the wikipedia editor who deleted his article under the horribly disgusting lie that this man’s death by self immolation was irrelevant:
Can you possibly imagine that you’re actually going to silence men so brutalized they burn themselves to death?
Archive: Thomas James Ball Wikipedia page
MRM Wikipedia whitewash
October 14, 2011
Ideologue Kevin Gorman and others vandalize Men’s Rights page.
The history and structure of men’s rights as a social movement were removed in favor of a propagandized history of how men limited women’s civil rights in Ancient Greece, Ireland, England, Pakistan, etc. MRA’s views on divorce, the “marriage strike,” male-only military conscription, reproductive rights, violence, the wage gap myth, media portrayal of men, etc. were either deleted or converted into drab mishmashes of factoids designed to cloud men’s rights proponents true concerns.
Archive: Men’s Rights page as it appeared on October 14, 2011
Gorman states in his bio that he is a co-moderator of Gendergap: a mailing list intended for discussing strategies to increase female participation in Wikipedia. This makes it presumable he is a leftist that subscribes to belief that Wikipedia suffers from a systematic bias, rather than considering that women may be less inclined to participate for entirely different reasons in accordance with their own free-will.
Other suspect Men’s Rights page editors are members of WikiProject Feminism.
Responses to MRM Wikipedia whitewash
October 15, 2011
Paul Elam noted:
I have recently discovered that I do not exist.
I was equally startled to find that the same thing holds true for Warren Farrell, Angry Harry, Bernard Chapin, John the Other and all other notables associated with the men’s rights movement. Indeed, the movement itself is nonexistent.
Update: Warren Farrell is back up.
Get a Ph.D, author six books, pretend to be pro-feminist, and learn to talk with a lisp and maybe the Wikigods will grant you a bio page.
October 15, 2011
John the Other wrote:
Here’s my question. or yours, actually. If you find yourself rewriting reference material to obscure and minimize the topic of that reference material; in fact censoring that topic, to create a public impression that it does not exist – do you recognize your own action as censorship? Taking that question further – do you recognize that the urge to silence opinions other than your own is a totalitarian urge?
Your own sandbox – Wikipedia – has a definition of censorship, albeit a rather poor definition. Like your revised mens rights article, the wikipedia definition of censorship obscures the essence of the topic.
October 16, 2011
Masculist Man observed:
Recently Wikipedia started deleting articles that were favorable to men or they misrepresented them. The dedication to Thomas Ball is gone along with other pages that were favorable to men’s rights. The men’s rights page has been altered to make MRA’s the bad guys and to further the idea of female victim hood.
How about those complaints about sexist customs and laws in Ancient Greece? Update your shit already!
October 18, 2011
Anna North concluded:
It’s true that people coming to the “men’s rights” page looking for information on men’s rights activism may be disappointed or confused — Wikipedia might consider adding a disambiguation directing users to a page on MRAs. Such a page exists, in nascent form, under the title “Men’s movement,” but there’s certainly room for expansion. Men’s rights activism, however disturbing some of its proponents are, is a real movement deserving of (neutral, unbiased) coverage on Wikipedia. But this doesn’t mean that efforts to root out biased or poorly sourced material are part of some sort of feminist conspiracy, or that attempts to close Wikipedia’s gender gap are an evil matriarchal plan to take over the world’s information. In fact, women in particular and rational people in general may be scared away from Wikipedia entirely if the most basic efforts to make the site “a professional and respectful environment” are recast as meddling by “dykes and dweebs.”
There is little relevant scholarship about men’s issues that hasn’t been corrupted by ideologues. Also what is a “reliable source?” Isn’t this an underhanded way to suppress dissentient voices while denying bias?
That wraps ups the controversy timeline for now. If my deplorable memory holds up, new tidbits will be posted as they come in.
As a bonus, here a clip from the article by W.F. Price that inspired me to compile this recent history of men’s rights vs. Wikipedia events and commentaries as they happened chronologically.
Theory: why female Wikipedia editors are rare
April 28, 2012
W.F. Price added:
… one thing I’d like to ask women is whether they’d really like to work for thousands of hours for free. I’m pretty sure we know the answer, as they hate the idea of even fixing a family dinner or taking care of their own children without being paid for it; women in the US have fought a decades-long battle to be financially compensated for everything they do. Including, most recently, undergrad fornication.
So, unless Wikipedia wants to start paying editors, the gender disparity will likely remain stark. And, in the meanwhile, men like Justin Knapp will continue to put hard work into bringing knowledge to the world. Like Lei Feng, they sacrifice their strength and ability for the greater good. However, there is a difference: at least in Maoist China, men like Lei Feng were honored at the highest level. Here in the West, men like Justin Knapp are encouraged to keep working away and all the while demeaned and insulted for their effort, simply because women – through their own choice – aren’t equally represented amongst those who choose to sacrifice their time and effort.
It is my personal belief that money is only part of the issue:
- Women generally aren’t interested in tedious, detail-oriented hobbies, ex. coin, stamp collecting, assembling model airplanes, etc., (barring those that enhance their physical appearance).
- Women generally aren’t obsessively engrossed by Web administration tasks.
- Women are generally less willing to contribute to a nonpartisan project when there is no direct compensation or notoriety to be gained.