Great point Mike.

You'll be please to know I spend an awful lot of time editing Wikipedia.

I tend to avoid many of the really obvious pages - there's just so much to do you have to restrict yourself in some way. Also I tend to stick to UK related pages otherwise I'd be on there all day.

I've still got hundreds of pages I want to edit so I probably won't be editing many of the pages you're thinking about. However if you need any tips or advice feel free to pm me as I've aquired a decent knowledge of the many wikipedia rules, regulations and processes.

I just took a look at wikipedia and found that the articles there about men's rights were more or less satisfactory. Do you edit often? Is there a way to tell when the articles have been edited, and by whom?

Quote from rohara

I just took a look at wikipedia and found that the articles there about men's rights were more or less satisfactory. Do you edit often? Is there a way to tell when the articles have been edited, and by whom?

Yeah it's under Page History at the top of each Page Discussion.
Some of the real nasty stuff may not show because some of the Wikipedia Feminista have friends in high places.
That is what we are up against.

Look,
The only reason I am saying this, is because, if anyone, anywhere is looking to find out about anything, either they will do a Google search or go to Wikipedia, Google will actually give Wikipedia as one of the links first up, it should look good for things like Mens Rights and so forth.

I do note that Anti-Misandry has a link under misandry, good stuff, Karl!

Quote from rohara

I just took a look at wikipedia and found that the articles there about men's rights were more or less satisfactory. Do you edit often? Is there a way to tell when the articles have been edited, and by whom?

You'll generally find that MRA pages aren't so bad, it's more the issues that can be feminist dominated or at least regularly get censored by the feminists. I remember the domestic violence article used to be especially bad.

Also things change - one day the article is reasonable, then the next day some feminist might have filled it with the usual myths or delete the most important facts.

On reading some articles more than once I see the point Mike is making - much of the work of the feminists is quite subtle on some of the MRA articles, but taken together it is a very clear attack.

Look at the fathers rights movement article for example. there's a deliberate attempt to suggests the movement is made up of mostly white and conservative men (perhaps as if they're trying to imply racism - I'm not sure). In reality i couldn't think of a group of people with more diverse political opinions.

Even worse, you'll notice the fact that some groups publicise the fact they have many female members is cleverly made into a negative point and they don't contrast it with the fact that so many feminists groups totally ban men, nor mention that such women often occupy powerful positions in the movement.(most notably f4J in Canada)

Further down they talk aobut "allegations of threatening behaviour" (not facts, just allegations), if something sin't proven it relaly shoudln't be there. On top of that they go out fo their way to only mention the F4J convictions rather than all the countless aquittals.These aquittals of course are vindication that the protests are legitimate, peaveful and reaosnable etc.

In summary they're constantly trying to point a negative picture of the MRA movement and don't want the truth to get out. Yes balance is a good thing,but but they're deliberatly beng far too negaitve. If you want blalance then where is all the gushing praise of the movement that was in the press not so long ago? I expect those bastards have censored it all.