> Wikipedia’s content and editors are both heavily white and male biased, often failing to respectfully reflect the ideas, values and viewpoints of women and minorities.
Stopped reading there. Wikipedia allows ANYONE to edit articles. Give me a break. This belongs on Tumblr, not THN.
If you don't even read far enough into an article to give the author time to explain what they are talking about (although the headline already gives a pretty strong hint that it is not about the line you quote, which primarily describes a fact about the current situation, and is put in context in the paragraph after it), don't complain about its contents.
Why is it a "Feminist" mission then? I read the rest of it. What does it have to do with "feminism" and of what relevance is the demographic/gender of purported editors? Why even bother mentioning it, if it's not meant to set the undertone?
I'm not saying the author doesn't think the demographics are relevant. But she doesn't just complain about "wikipedia has to many male editors and is thus treating some topics unfairly", but looks into why and what could be done to help fix that. (Which IMHO makes it a lot better than many other articles about the topic.)
Your inital comment ignores the latter part completely: "Everybody is allowed to edit" doesn't make much sense as a response to "this is why some people's contributions are (seemingly unfairly) rejected", and if you actually stopped where you quoted, you would have missed the latter part entirely, since it starts in the paragraph after. If your comment was intended to make another point, I missed it.
Stopped reading there. Wikipedia allows ANYONE to edit articles. Give me a break. This belongs on Tumblr, not THN.