Today, I did a quick internet search (Google) for "Shiva" to verify a detail or two. I clicked on the Wikipedia link. By the end of the second brief paragraph, I was already informed of "the goddess tradition of Hinduism called Shaktism" and how it considers Parvati to be "the equal complementary partner" of Shiva.That is certainly encouraging! One step at a time. One page at a time. But the goal of an objective, user-centric knowledge core is gradually taking shape, thanks to everyone's support.
Hmm. Is Shaktism so prevalent or important that it must be introduced before we learn anything more of Shiva? Also, I can understand how Parvati may be "complementary", but the addition of "equal" smelled too SJWish. I went to Infogalactic to see how its page differs.
On Infogalactic, the offending lines are absent, among other changes.
I am impressed. I am also encouraged. I don't know where Infogalactic will lead or what all it will accomplish. I can only imagine what providing a more pure source of information may do, how it may affect all the minds searching for information. What if our youth become accustomed to the *lack* of SJW propaganda, and as a result become similarly skeptical when they meet it, as I did today? You are saving lives and securing the future.
Enough for now. I just wanted to drop you a line to say you're appreciated, that I am proud to be a supporter, and that I will help spread the word.
Safari does have extensions on OS X (not iOS), but they work on a different system than the other browsers and I don't have a Mac to do the development/testing with. The scripting for this was pretty simple and I believe the same javascript could be used for a Safari extension. If you can find a volunteer with a Mac and a bit of technical aptitude it shouldn't be hard for them to get it up and running. The basics they would need to get started are available here.
Some of the administrators in charge of editing Wikipedia pages have admitted that they have become greatly concerned about online privacy due to receiving threats whenever they moderate pages about controversial topics. The admissions were made to researchers of Drexel University in Philadelphia, US, who were carrying out research into how and why internet users protect their privacy while working on collaborative projects online.No one involved with Infogalactic is known to anyone outside the project except for the Lead Designer. We plan to keep it that way. Only the members of the Star Council will have access to the real identities behind the various handles, as there is no reason anyone else needs to know them.
The researchers interviewed 23 individuals, including several Wikipedia editors, and discovered that users who work on collaborative projects often receive threats from governments, groups of people and other individuals that are substantial enough to make the users fear for the safety and reputation of themselves and their families.
The extent of the abuse is so bad that many Wikipedia editors now have to use the Tor anonymity network to disguise their IP addresses, because otherwise people who mean them harm trace their IPs and threaten them with violence.
Pervasive threats of harrassment, rape and death
"We were surprised to learn how pervasive and dire the threat was perceived to be among people with central roles (like employees of the Wikimedia Foundation) and permissions like blocking editors or protecting pages (like administrators chosen by the community)," the researchers wrote in their paper.
One female Wikipedia administrator reported that "the fear of harassment, of real, of stalking and things like that, is quite substantial. At least among administrators I know, especially women", while another individual, who started working for Wikipedia as a teenager, said: "It's a lot of emotional work, and I remember being like 13 and getting a lot of rape threats and death threats, and that was when I was doing administrative work."
The Wikipedia editors reported that threats were made to both male and female editors, and that the threats sadly often came from other editors on the project, who had a conflict with the content that was either allowed to be published, or taken off pages for various reason. Threats became more intense if the editors were holding central positions as administrators or members of the arbitration committee, who were given the final say on content.
