Wikipedia is ‘very masculine,’ so feminists pledge to fix it

Daily Caller ^ | February 2, 2014 | Robby Soave

[faithhopecharity]

colleges are obviously VERY over-staffed ... and with people of very little intellect or imagination...

(why tuition is so high and so many graduates illiterate?)

[Gumdrop]

OK. I am a female. I admit it. I do not think the website is either masculine or feminine. It is laid out in a nice, clean looking way.

These so-called feminists are nuttier than fruitcakes.

[radiohead]

<“It’s aesthetically very masculine in its design,” . . .

<That’s code for “it is logically organized (even if much of it is logically organized garbage).”

No kidding. When I saw the title, I thought, what do they want to change; it’s organized very well and the pages are clear and easy to read. I wish these leftists would stop acting like they are talking for all women.

btw - I’m a black female w/a PhD in information science. I have no problem reading or navigating Wikipedia. When I seek info on women, it is there, so I don’t see how they can say the design is masculine or that it leans masculine in its coverage (there may be more men covered, I don’t know their stats, I just know I don’t have a problem finding in about women on it).

I started out in human-computer interaction at the masters’ level and teach website evaluation at the grad level. I know a little about website design and think these women are full of garbage. Is it possible for leftists to go one day without complaining about something?

[rickade]

I wouldn’t be so quick to judge on this one. I count dozens of he’s and him’s in the George Washington entry, but very few female pronouns. The feminists may have a point this time.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well said, radiohead.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Next week, feminists are encouraged to change rewrite the online encyclopedia to make it less masculine, according to Campus Reform.

What is "change rewrite?" Is that anything like You need tons click "co-ordinating"?

DANG!