Wikipedia verbannt feministische Editoren von Gender-Beiträgen

In der deutschen Wikipedia hat die radikalfeministische Fraktion von Andreas Kemper bis "Fiona Baine" die Einträge zum Genderthema fest im Griff – und die anderen Mitarbeiter der Enzyklopädie schauen untätig zu. Offene Hetze gegen Andersdenkende wird achselzuckend hingenommen; am Beibehalten des Neutral Point of View sind deutsche Wikipedianer nicht interessiert. In der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hingegen hat man der ideologischen Korruption jetzt einen Riegel vorgeschoben:

Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, the highest user-run body on the site, has banned five editors from making corrections to articles about feminism, in an attempt to stop a long-running edit war over the entry on the "Gamergate controversy".

(...) The sanction bars the five editors from having anything to do with any articles covering Gamergate, but also from any other article about "gender or sexuality, broadly construed".

(...) "No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts created specifically for the purpose of being sanctioned," said Mark Bernstein, a writer and Wikipedia editor.

In contrast, he says, "by my informal count, every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned. This takes care of social justice warriors with a vengeance — not only do the Gamergaters get to rewrite their own page (and Zoe Quinn’s, Brianna Wu’s, Anita Sarkeesian’s, etc); feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia."

(...) At one point, Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, was drawn into the debate, telling a student who had emailed him over perceived bias in the article that "Gamergate has been permanently tarnished and hijacked by a handful of people who are not what you would hope."

Wales’ advice for Gamergate supporters who wanted to change the Wikipedia article was to be constructive, and present a vision for the article which they wanted to read rather than engage in a war with feminist editors who were trying to maintain their vision.

(...) "I think what this shows is how poisonous Wikipedia politics has become," Brady says. "It’s a game of provocation chicken, both sides try to work as close to the ill-defined edge of acceptable behaviour to provoke the other into crossing it. All the arbcom does is play its part, it never looks at its role in creating that climate. And the wider Wikipedia community isn’t going to fix it because most of them are exactly the sort of toxic people who weren’t driven out."

Das kann man aber laut sagen. Ich weiß natürlich, dass auch vernünftige Menschen für die Wikipedia arbeiten, brauche mir aber nur die Diskussionsseiten zu umstrittenen Themen durchzulesen, um zu merken, dass die Online-Enzyklopädie genau jene Leute anzieht, die man nicht in seinem Freundeskreis haben möchte. Offenbar haben vor allem Leute ohne ein soziales Leben viel Zeit für endlose Edit-Wars in der Wikipedia.

Irritierend ist allerdings, dass die giftige Gesprächskultur in der Wikipedia zum Schluss des Artikels durch die bekannte Frauen-sind-bessere-Menschen-Rhetorik zu erklären versucht wird:

Its reportedly unpleasant internal culture and unwelcoming atmosphere for new editors has long been blamed for an overwhelmingly masculine make-up – just one in ten editors are thought to be female – which in turn contributes to which topics get featured on the site.

Ja, natürlich: Bei fast allem, was irgendwie schlecht läuft, wird Männern die Schuld gegeben. Und im Fall der Wikipedia von Mitgliedern derselben Fraktion wie die, die dort gerade in hohem Bogen rausgeflogen sind.