Wikipedia Is ‘Very Masculine’ So Feminists Pledge To Fix It

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You can call Wikipedia a lot of things but I don't think "very masculine" is one of them.

“It’s aesthetically very masculine in its design.” To fix this, feminists at colleges around the country are launching another ‘Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon.’ Next week, feminists are encouraged to change rewrite the online encyclopedia to make it less masculine, according to Campus Reform.
Click to expand...
 
arr4ws said:
and a metro interface!
Click to expand...

Metro UI is not a girls' UI. Please don't lump that into this.

Then again, I'm not seeing the slant on Wikipedia that the article says exists or seeing a need at all to make this an issue. It'll just stir up a bunch of people on the other side that'll point and say, "See?! They're being stupid so it justifies what we're saying about them!" This kinda thing isn't the right way to approach the fundamentally stupid parts of society to make actual meaningful change.
 
I went through a reverting vandalism phase years ago. Even got my account permissions modified so I could 1 click rollback mass vandalism. Bring it on bitches!
 
It's a sad, sad world we live in these days... a world where people can judge and dictate and feel compeled to say and do things like this.

People need to STOP and think very well where their priorities are, because is it really that important how it looks? I believe that the content should dictate the rest.

Those "feminists" don't have anything better to do with their time? isn't there any pressing things in their agenda which are far more important than this? if no, I feel sad for them too.
 
Ashbringer said:
Metro UI and Metrosexual? You never made that correlation?
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with names and everything to do with the people I see using them the most. And I admit that's not at all a scientific sorta way to do it, but Windows 8/8.1 tablets seem to end up in the hands of guys more often than not while the rest of the world goes for iPads. (and yeah, I know there's yet another dumb name-gender link there too)
 
"The layout of the website is itself “very masculine,” she said."

There's a difference between 'masculine' and 'utilitarian.' I like the fact that wiki has a utilitarian layout. It's easy to see where to navigate and read. It's a resource, not an entertainment website. Don't sully it.
 
I doubt that they will edit anything warranted; more like cover for mass editing. After all, who wants to be the guy who stands up against feminists? Wouldn't simpletons automatically judge your actions as misogyny?
 
Women get upset if you don't talk like the world revolves around them. I expect all the masculine references to God like He or Him will be She or her type non-sense.
 
megabiteg said:
Those "feminists" don't have anything better to do with their time? isn't there any pressing things in their agenda which are far more important than this? if no, I feel sad for them too.
Click to expand...

There probably too busy lobbying for more hard-earned taxpayer money and getting free birth control payed by men and women that actually earn their living and don't have time to waste on such frivolous and trivial pursuits.

Feminism had it's day and purpose, but now it's nothing more than a hate-filled idealogical pursuit to punish and demean boys and men simply because they are boys and men.
 
That is some crazy shit right there.

The actual thought by some the groups, btw, is that the articles are pro-masculine because educated white men have written history so they need revision (Revisionist history? Say it ain't so!). Plus the articles fail to take appropriate stock of the failings on MAN-kind.

I'd love to see each paragraph on Wkipedia end with "ALL MEN ARE RAPIST PIGS! VAG-POWER! VAG-POWER! VAG-POWER!"

I know that's not their endgame but every time I see some hairy, dreadlocked, rape screaming vagithug spouting off about rape culture I can't help but smile. They're just as pissed off at women who fail to be what they specifically think women should be. They're kind of like men, really, we're brutal to each other if we think another man hasn't lived up to his job as a man.
 
I agree the design leaves a lot to be desired, but I don't typically associate aesthetic design with gender... plenty of women I know design plain utility-like interfaces too, and some guys like lots of padding and soft colours... so, whatever... the gender war thing is so 1950s, I wish people would get over it and stop taking sides... you just look like little babies when you do...

I will admit one thing though: Windows Metro = Metrosexual = YES! Think about it. It's clean, bold, is overly concerned with outwards appearances, very PC, likes trinkettes and other "add-ons", evokes extreme emotional responses from random dudes on the internet, etc... I THINK MS KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING!!!!
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Yeah and because there are women actresses in comic book super hero movies, those are target marketed at women too.
Click to expand...

I never got the whole "women are objectified in comics" reasoning that feminists were pushing. Comic book nerds (heck, most men) have NOTHING like a super hero body. Objectified? That's the point of some super heroes.

Feminists have gone above and beyond the equal rights for women. Now, they are wanting to have the women are the superior sex rights. Other groups are starting to do the same thing. Equality? They don't want equality. They want superiority. Most feminists. I'm all for women's rights. As long as they don't trump mine, yours or someone else's.

Wikipedia is fine. It's a valuable tool and asset for many. It's a tool. If women are equal, they could use the same tool as anyone else. Right now, I'd say it's very gender neutral, not masculine. Unless these feminists are saying that only men use tools and are boring, then they are dicks...
 
Time2Kill said:
You do realize what metro means right.....he wasn't directly referring to Metro UI but instead metrosexual. You might want to head over to Wikipedia and look it up.
Click to expand...

The post that quote was in response to didn't have anything to do with metrosexuals. I'm not sure what you're trying to even get at. Did you read them in the order they happened?

Ur_Mom said:
I never got the whole "women are objectified in comics" reasoning that feminists were pushing. Comic book nerds (heck, most men) have NOTHING like a super hero body. Objectified? That's the point of some super heroes.

Feminists have gone above and beyond the equal rights for women. Now, they are wanting to have the women are the superior sex rights. Other groups are starting to do the same thing. Equality? They don't want equality. They want superiority. Most feminists. I'm all for women's rights. As long as they don't trump mine, yours or someone else's.

Wikipedia is fine. It's a valuable tool and asset for many. It's a tool. If women are equal, they could use the same tool as anyone else. Right now, I'd say it's very gender neutral, not masculine. Unless these feminists are saying that only men use tools and are boring, then they are dicks...
Click to expand...

I wasn't really grumbling about objectification. That's not really a big deal. I was trying to point out that, just because a woman was involved in a project like designing a UI for an operating system doesn't mean it's intended to be used by women or was somehow targeted at women. People of lots of different genders design stuff together and design stuff to appeal to the opposite gender which makes it sort of silly to say "So-and-so's name appears in the credits so it has to be for that gender!"

I use wikipedia pretty often and I don't at all see a gender bias in the site's articles. In fact, I think that the whole idea of making a callout for a massive edit is sort of silly and childish. There's still a lot of stupid stuff about the way genders treat each other, but if someone wants to make an issue out of something, attacking a bunch of wikipedia articles just makes it impossible to have legitimate discussions because of the noise extremists are making on both sides tends to drown out more reasonable people who are open to talking about things and maybe coming to some kind of actual compromise that works okay for everyone.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I wasn't really grumbling about objectification. That's not really a big deal. I was trying to point out that, just because a woman was involved in a project like designing a UI for an operating system doesn't mean it's intended to be used by women or was somehow targeted at women. People of lots of different genders design stuff together and design stuff to appeal to the opposite gender which makes it sort of silly to say "So-and-so's name appears in the credits so it has to be for that gender!"
Click to expand...

You mean like most designers? Marc Jacobs, Louis Vuitton, etc? They design a lot for women, and women love that shit. A lot of chick flicks are written and directed by men, too. Even if a woman singlehandedly designed a UI, it would be targeted for the mass market, not for just a single gender. Unless they were designing a Barbie UI or something with a target for girls (or Hot Wheels for boys).

A lot of things that boys (and men) like are made by women for men. Yet, they are still very masculine. They know their target audience.
 
Ur_Mom said:
You mean like most designers? Marc Jacobs, Louis Vuitton, etc? They design a lot for women, and women love that shit. A lot of chick flicks are written and directed by men, too. Even if a woman singlehandedly designed a UI, it would be targeted for the mass market, not for just a single gender. Unless they were designing a Barbie UI or something with a target for girls (or Hot Wheels for boys).

A lot of things that boys (and men) like are made by women for men. Yet, they are still very masculine. They know their target audience.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's pretty much exactly what I was trying to imply. :D

Like in the claim that well educated men are making most of Wikipedia's entries. To stuff like that, I say, "Um...so what?" As long as the stuff that's on it is useful or accurate, I don't think there's any reason to get upset or go on some internet crusade over it.
 
I already checked out this crazy group on Wikipedia and they seemed focused on famous or non-famous female articles.
 
It would be hilarious to hear about a site being deemed too feminine. The suggestion alone would be considered sexist and oppressive - people would get fired. But a site being too masculine? Fair game.

Wow.
 
Sarah Stierch, the woman who appeared as the spokesperson for this event in that article may have sour grapes over being caught and removed from the Wikimedia Foundation for editing entries for pay. She is no longer a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, and shouldn't be labeled as such. Now she all of a sudden claims that Wikipedia is sexist? Only after her employment working there herself has ended?

Bullshit. Quote from her own Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Stierch
In January 2014, the Wikimedia Foundation announced that Stierch was "no longer an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation", after evidence was presented on a Wikimedia mailing list that she had "been editing Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients" – a practice the Wikimedia Foundation said was "frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation",[1] and which Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner describes as a "black hat practice".
Click to expand...

News Article on her termination.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...r-who--enhanced-entries-for-cash-9052308.html

This information NEEDS to be spread before people start joining her fascade of a cause, when really it looks like she is just seeking retribution from her former employer. Wikipedia is a neutral layout.
 
Good find. That puts things in a much clearer context.

Most people involved in "activism" seem to have an agenda that's quite a bit different than the one they present to the public.
 
I wonder just how much misogyny is catalyzed by women themselves.
 
Youn said:
I agree the design leaves a lot to be desired, but I don't typically associate aesthetic design with gender... plenty of women I know design plain utility-like interfaces too, and some guys like lots of padding and soft colours... so, whatever... the gender war thing is so 1950s, I wish people would get over it and stop taking sides... you just look like little babies when you do...

I will admit one thing though: Windows Metro = Metrosexual = YES! Think about it. It's clean, bold, is overly concerned with outwards appearances, very PC, likes trinkettes and other "add-ons", evokes extreme emotional responses from random dudes on the internet, etc... I THINK MS KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING!!!!
Click to expand...

I've always preferred simple, functional designs, as they tend to convey information more effectively.

I had a professor in college (he taught Statics) who once said "The only thing you demonstrate by using color in an engineering chart, is that you know NOTHING about engineering charts."

I tend to agree with him. Simple is clear. Anything that even pretends to want to convey information should be as simple and basic in its design as possible.
 
there, i fixed it

wiki_resdesign.png
 
I find most feminists to be very masculine.
I wish they'd fix THAT first!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top