Voxopedia: where information about women goes to be erased
The erasure of women’s achievements in science is a known phenomenon, but it is rare that you get to see it happen in such a simple and direct way. Over at our new favourite train-wreck, Vox Day had been busy quite literally erasing women’s contribution to science.
44 responses to “Voxopedia: where information about women goes to be erased”
Well, you know women can’t really be scientists, though. That’s just Wikipedia being politically correct, writing those SJW articles pretending that women did science, trying to create some reality where women can do physics — I mean, please!
VD’s just reverting to facts. Facts are facts, amirite?
Their seasonal staff parties must be insufferable. 🙂 It would be interesting to see how they revise the article on “object permanence” since they seem to be using an infant’s approach to reality (If I can’t see it, or if I deny it, it doesn’t exist).
[…] (4) VANISHING POINT. Camestros Felapton is keeping an eye on the internet’s newest knowledge source: “Voxopedia: where information about women goes to be erased”. […]
Do you have reason to think that Fenris is Ted Beale? I would guess that he’s not – Castalia publish a (terrible) author under the name Fenris Wulf, who seems to be someone else entirely, and he would seem to be the obvious suspect. His book is reviewed here, and he himself turns up to comment:
A few things make me think Fenris=Vox. Beale has associated that name with himself before. Vox has to be a user on the site and Fenris is one of the 4 member council. The other members of the council have lots of administrative edits, whereas Fenris is making content edits. Those edits are primarily on obvious Vox Day stuff (John Scalzi, Castalia House books etc).
I did wonder if ‘Fenris Wulf’ was Vox but the evidence laid out at Eruditorum does strongly suggest otherwise. So a coincidence of sorts.
Also one more point. The council has four User accounts: Renegade, Rifleman, Crew and Fenris http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Council
In the announcement post Vox thanks several people by either name or username including Renegade, Rifleman and Crew. He doesn’t thank Fenris.
Reading the comments on that review gave me chuckles, thank you. He does seem to be a real, non-VD person per the people who knew his history.
It does seem logical that he’s using Fenris on vainopedia though – I had a quick look through some of his activity and there’s nothing to contradict the idea, and several things consistent with him. If so, he’s edited his own entry to add his mighty achievements in the field of tech (WarMouse!)
Their launch announcement explicitly says Fenris is Vox Day. (I’d link to it, but my last version of this comment didn’t go through, and I’m not sure if it’s because of a URL from an unknown poster.) You should be able to find it off their web page or with a little Googling.
Apparently you don’t understand the purpose of a main page in an online encyclopedia. Many of the topics listed on that science page are short introductions to a broader topic covered on another page. You really might want to go and read the page first.
If, as Vox Day appears to be claiming (and I’m assuming is the jump of reasoning you are making in this apparent non-sequitur) the ‘Women in science’ section was purely there because of trendyleftwingcauses then those sections *would* be there. The fact that they are NOT there disproves Vox’s contention.
So how has yours and his reasoning gone so awry? Because you’ve fallen for the women-are-minorities fallacy i.e. you think of women as being the same as a category of people like ethnic minorities or LGBTQI people BECAUSE those groups also are subject to discrimination and prejudice.
However, women are very much NOT a minority group. Nor are they a separate society, or represent a different civilization. This maybe shocking news for you but, guess what, women are EVERYWHERE. There is a very good chance your mother was one, for example (if you are struggling to think of an example of a woman).
In every human society, in every nation, at every stage of history there were women. They didn’t wear cloaks of invisibility either – they lived and work and loved and died and did things. They were and are, an integral part of every society that has ever existed. That is a simple fact – easily demonstrated. No human society can operate without women and the work women do. Even sections of societies that have been reserved just for men have relied on women in multiple ways.
So no, a ‘women in science’ section does not imply there must also be a ‘LGBTI in science’ section nor does it imply that there SHOULDN’T be a ‘LGTBI in science’ section.
So they have a page about science. That page has details about science method, history etc. It doesn’t cover every scientific discovery, there is a separate page about women in science. I really don’t see the issue here.
Major categories of that page:
History of Science: Self explanatory, I would hope.
Science Funding: A key part of science that affects the entire community regardless of race, gender or orientation. An inclusive category.
Science in Society: How society is affected by science. Society, community. An inclusive category.
Philosophy of Science: A neutral category that reviews the scientific community approaches science. An inclusive category.
Scientific Practice: How science is applied in the real world by the community. An inclusive category.
Men in Science: The history, contributions, and present day male scientists. An exclusive category. Not present on the page about Science.
(Whatever other exclusive group) in Science: The history, contributions and present day X scientists. An exclusive category. Not present on the page about Science.
Women in Science: The history, contributions, and present day female scientists. An exclusive category. Not present on the page about Science.
This seems such a middling thing and the logic behind the organization and content of the page makes sense to me.
I know, “MISOGYNY!!!” and “SEXISM!!!” as usual. Cleaning up articles to remove unnecessary political crap and separate subjects couldn’t possibly be the case.
You all have so much sand in your ass cracks about Vox’s editor name you apparently didn’t notice the “Women in Science” page on Infogalactic either.
“You all have so much sand in your ass cracks about Vox’s editor name you apparently didn’t notice the “Women in Science” page on Infogalactic either.”
Actually, it was the Infogalactic editors who hadn’t noticed that page – I pointed it out to them. See my post the preceded Vox’s recent one.
I didn’t see any actual “answer”, only a facile reply in the comments – “Many of the topics listed on that science page are short introductions to a broader topic covered on another page.” – that could be used to introduce topics on anything and everything no matter how tangential to the subject. That is a better argument to trimming the topics listed to make it more relevant and concise, and less politicized.
This logic thing seems to be causing you some problems.
A reason given for removing the section was that it had a main page elsewhere. This reasoning is faulty. The fault is demonstrated by pointing out multiple sections with their own page elsewhere. Not really the hardest chain of reasoning to follow.
You are now treating that point as if it was a decontextualised arhument for having the section. That is also an error in your reasoning or rather an error in following an argument.
You have yet to lay out ANY case for having that section included. I asked why that section should be included in the general ‘science’ entry, and you responded that was “a question I’ve already answered”. Then you chastised me for treating your point as an argument for having the section.
It appears you are having trouble following your own argument not-argument.
There you go, “read the posts”… posts in the plural; your argument was made on a completely different page. You shouldn’t assume that someone who is commenting on one of your posts has read any other of your posts.
Having now read the other posts, the arguments still do not appear to be of any particularly worth. Where is the equally irrelevant section on ‘First Nations in Science’, or ‘Conservatives in Science’? It would appear that the excising of the ‘Women in Science’ section was a de-politicizing of the entry. While you argue that wasn’t the intent, I argue that was the result, and results interest me far more than intents. Your argument boils down to you being upset because the sub section was in accord with your socio-political bias, and so feel the need to respond in shallow snarky insults that you mistake for biting criticism.
“You shouldn’t assume that someone who is commenting on one of your posts has read any other of your posts.”
I don’t assume that they have done so, I just assume that somebody who wants to speak with a modicum of authority about what arguments I have put forward has bothered to do their homework. If they are foolish enough to make assertion without doing their homework than I assume they are going to end up looking a bit silly.
“Having now read the other posts, the arguments still do not appear to be of any particularly worth. Where is the equally irrelevant section on ‘First Nations in Science’”
…and you straight away demonstrate that you have NOT read the arguments I have made on this topic. I mean I guess I good go around copying and pasting bits of my own blog on to my own comment section because somebody firstly can’t reason their way through why they are making a flawed argument and secondly can’t be bothered to find the place where I already pointed out WHY it was a flawed argument but I really can’t think of any reason why I would want to.
“It would appear that the excising of the ‘Women in Science’ section was a de-politicizing of the entry.”
It was the opposite of that. It was the removal of relevant information for political reasons. the removal was a political act. The existence of the information was ‘political’ only in so far as there exist a political position that regards women being involved in science as a bad thing. Notably the removal of information was done by a person who does take that political stance. Hence the removal was a political act. The reason given for the removal have all been shown to be spurious in so far as they apply to other sections that were not removed.
“Your argument boils down to you being upset…”
I’m not remotely upset. I’m amused. It is funny – in a sort of pathetic sort of way. It is like watching David Brent try to run an office.
“…so feel the need to respond in shallow snarky in”
Well, so far you haven’t managed any substantive points. Indeed, collectively the various defenders of Voxopedia that have dropped by have really own managed to recycle the talking points Vox provided.
But, tell you what. If you can put together an actual good-faith critique of the arguments I’ve used, I’ll respond without any snark.
I am “defending” Infogalactic simply through a desire to have another voice, with another bias, in that arena. I actually expect it to remain a rather quiet and infrequently visited backwater of the internet. I don’t expect Wikipedia to be unseated until a self programming artificial intelligence is set to the task of creating a precise and evolving encyclopaedia that removes as much of the human bias as is possible. I have a suspicion that you, and many others, will recoil in horror from what it produces.
After looking for them, I had read your arguments, I simply found them to be entirely insufficient in swaying the case.
“As the (sub)topic was ‘Science and society’, the role of half+ of humanity in science could hardly be called irrelevant. You are aware that women are part of society, right?” “Gender and gender roles are an important part of the social aspects of most fields.”
The sole purpose to single out ‘women in science’ is an ideologically driven one, as every demographic, so matter how small, is a part of society. Your reason may be that you believe the dominance of men in the field is primarily or exclusively due to discrimination, and you wish to draw attention to the fact that there have been many women who have contributed to the field. The most likely motivation for this is to advance the agenda of greater participation by women; that is a bias held by many. The agenda may even be laudatory, since I am not convinced by Vox Day’s arguments that the impact of more women working in the field is a net negative to scientific advancement (while I do expect the preoccupation with counting genitalia and surface albedo is having a strong negative impact). That doesn’t mean it has a place on the main ‘Science’ page. I would suggest you keep gender and gender roles out of the section rather than open the main page to the counter argument that women and minorities are not represented in science due to a statistical imbalance in interest and ability.
“Having short sections on a main page is what helps an online encyclopedia work – it allows people to find topics of interest.”
That topic is of interest to those with an agenda to highlight a specific demographic for ideological reasons. Can you then make an argument to exclude other agenda driven desires to include or exclude any other demographic in that section? Conservatives make up almost the same percentage of the population as women, and are also very underrepresented in science. While I am sure that you can come up with a myriad of justifications for that, I challenge you to do so without being disgusted by it if an alt-right person used the exact same justifications for women and minorities being under represented.
“Should there be a men in science page? Looks like you’ve made one already by deleting all the women from the ‘Science’ page. I doubt a ‘Men in science’ page is neccesary but it is a better idea than having a page called ‘science’ and only mentioning men.”
A ‘Men in Science’ section would be as pointless and ideologically driven as one specific to women. An argument could be put forward that some of the advances and discoveries made by women deserve inclusion in the cursory history of science subsection, that does not appear to be the argument you are making. In fact, were you to become an editor and add a few significant women in the history timeline, and those were in turn deleted, I would be far more inclined to take your charge of anti-female bias seriously.
Camestros Felapton 
44 responses to “Voxopedia: where information about women goes to be erased”
Well, you know women can’t really be scientists, though. That’s just Wikipedia being politically correct, writing those SJW articles pretending that women did science, trying to create some reality where women can do physics — I mean, please!
VD’s just reverting to facts. Facts are facts, amirite?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Facts are facts! Hence the article mentions Issac Newton and Bill Clinton 🙂
LikeLike
Their seasonal staff parties must be insufferable. 🙂 It would be interesting to see how they revise the article on “object permanence” since they seem to be using an infant’s approach to reality (If I can’t see it, or if I deny it, it doesn’t exist).
Read this article today, thought you might like it too on the falling away of Stormfront’s heir apparent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b
LikeLike
I saw that too! Nice to think that learning medieval history can make someone a better person.
LikeLike
This is my favourite thing Theodore has ever done. What’s actually happening there is so at odds with their stated objective. Beautiful.
LikeLike
Also, because they are using the standard media wiki, it is unusually transparent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes, the whole thing is just brilliantly inept.
LikeLike
[…] (4) VANISHING POINT. Camestros Felapton is keeping an eye on the internet’s newest knowledge source: “Voxopedia: where information about women goes to be erased”. […]
LikeLike
Do you have reason to think that Fenris is Ted Beale? I would guess that he’s not – Castalia publish a (terrible) author under the name Fenris Wulf, who seems to be someone else entirely, and he would seem to be the obvious suspect. His book is reviewed here, and he himself turns up to comment:
http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/lokis-child-review-by-david-gerard/
LikeLike
A few things make me think Fenris=Vox. Beale has associated that name with himself before. Vox has to be a user on the site and Fenris is one of the 4 member council. The other members of the council have lots of administrative edits, whereas Fenris is making content edits. Those edits are primarily on obvious Vox Day stuff (John Scalzi, Castalia House books etc).
I did wonder if ‘Fenris Wulf’ was Vox but the evidence laid out at Eruditorum does strongly suggest otherwise. So a coincidence of sorts.
LikeLike
Also one more point. The council has four User accounts: Renegade, Rifleman, Crew and Fenris http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Council
In the announcement post Vox thanks several people by either name or username including Renegade, Rifleman and Crew. He doesn’t thank Fenris.
LikeLike
Good points, yes.
LikeLike
Reading the comments on that review gave me chuckles, thank you. He does seem to be a real, non-VD person per the people who knew his history.
It does seem logical that he’s using Fenris on vainopedia though – I had a quick look through some of his activity and there’s nothing to contradict the idea, and several things consistent with him. If so, he’s edited his own entry to add his mighty achievements in the field of tech (WarMouse!)
LikeLike
Yeah, writing his own article about himself about sums the whole thing up
LikeLike
That review and the comments are hilarious.
LikeLike
Their launch announcement explicitly says Fenris is Vox Day. (I’d link to it, but my last version of this comment didn’t go through, and I’m not sure if it’s because of a URL from an unknown poster.) You should be able to find it off their web page or with a little Googling.
LikeLike
Hadn’t seen that. Thank you.
LikeLike
And where was your tolerance for different opinions when you were stacking wikipedia with pro-feminist marxist ideology?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh please, I’m many things but I’m not a Marxist – I can’t stand dialectical materialism, it gives me hives.
LikeLike
Funny that lackwits who don’t know about science want to keep it that way by adding #womeninscience fluff to an article.
Apparently, you don’t understand that’s a different subject, and thus a different article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently you don’t understand the purpose of a main page in an online encyclopedia. Many of the topics listed on that science page are short introductions to a broader topic covered on another page. You really might want to go and read the page first.
LikeLike
Then why doesn’t Wikipedia have a “Blacks in science” section, or a “LGBT in Science” section on the Science page?
You racist homophobic degenerates.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If, as Vox Day appears to be claiming (and I’m assuming is the jump of reasoning you are making in this apparent non-sequitur) the ‘Women in science’ section was purely there because of trendyleftwingcauses then those sections *would* be there. The fact that they are NOT there disproves Vox’s contention.
So how has yours and his reasoning gone so awry? Because you’ve fallen for the women-are-minorities fallacy i.e. you think of women as being the same as a category of people like ethnic minorities or LGBTQI people BECAUSE those groups also are subject to discrimination and prejudice.
However, women are very much NOT a minority group. Nor are they a separate society, or represent a different civilization. This maybe shocking news for you but, guess what, women are EVERYWHERE. There is a very good chance your mother was one, for example (if you are struggling to think of an example of a woman).
In every human society, in every nation, at every stage of history there were women. They didn’t wear cloaks of invisibility either – they lived and work and loved and died and did things. They were and are, an integral part of every society that has ever existed. That is a simple fact – easily demonstrated. No human society can operate without women and the work women do. Even sections of societies that have been reserved just for men have relied on women in multiple ways.
So no, a ‘women in science’ section does not imply there must also be a ‘LGBTI in science’ section nor does it imply that there SHOULDN’T be a ‘LGTBI in science’ section.
LikeLike
So they have a page about science. That page has details about science method, history etc. It doesn’t cover every scientific discovery, there is a separate page about women in science. I really don’t see the issue here.
LikeLike
And things like science funding etc in a section on science and society and many other aspects that have their own separate pages.
LikeLike
Major categories of that page:
History of Science: Self explanatory, I would hope.
Science Funding: A key part of science that affects the entire community regardless of race, gender or orientation. An inclusive category.
Science in Society: How society is affected by science. Society, community. An inclusive category.
Philosophy of Science: A neutral category that reviews the scientific community approaches science. An inclusive category.
Scientific Practice: How science is applied in the real world by the community. An inclusive category.
Men in Science: The history, contributions, and present day male scientists. An exclusive category. Not present on the page about Science.
(Whatever other exclusive group) in Science: The history, contributions and present day X scientists. An exclusive category. Not present on the page about Science.
Women in Science: The history, contributions, and present day female scientists. An exclusive category. Not present on the page about Science.
This seems such a middling thing and the logic behind the organization and content of the page makes sense to me.
LikeLike
I know, “MISOGYNY!!!” and “SEXISM!!!” as usual. Cleaning up articles to remove unnecessary political crap and separate subjects couldn’t possibly be the case.
You all have so much sand in your ass cracks about Vox’s editor name you apparently didn’t notice the “Women in Science” page on Infogalactic either.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Women_in_science
Dumbasses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You all have so much sand in your ass cracks about Vox’s editor name you apparently didn’t notice the “Women in Science” page on Infogalactic either.”
Actually, it was the Infogalactic editors who hadn’t noticed that page – I pointed it out to them. See my post the preceded Vox’s recent one.
Top-tip: read what you are talking about first.
LikeLike
https://infogalactic.com/info/Women_in_science
Why would it be included in the general ‘Science’ entry?
LikeLike
A question I’ve already answered. Pausing for a moment to read may do wonders for the quality of the question you might ask.
LikeLike
I didn’t see any actual “answer”, only a facile reply in the comments – “Many of the topics listed on that science page are short introductions to a broader topic covered on another page.” – that could be used to introduce topics on anything and everything no matter how tangential to the subject. That is a better argument to trimming the topics listed to make it more relevant and concise, and less politicized.
LikeLike
This logic thing seems to be causing you some problems.
A reason given for removing the section was that it had a main page elsewhere. This reasoning is faulty. The fault is demonstrated by pointing out multiple sections with their own page elsewhere. Not really the hardest chain of reasoning to follow.
You are now treating that point as if it was a decontextualised arhument for having the section. That is also an error in your reasoning or rather an error in following an argument.
Maybe take a few deep breathes.
LikeLike
You have yet to lay out ANY case for having that section included. I asked why that section should be included in the general ‘science’ entry, and you responded that was “a question I’ve already answered”. Then you chastised me for treating your point as an argument for having the section.
It appears you are having trouble following your own argument not-argument.
LikeLike
You may have to actually read the posts I’ve written on the subject
LikeLike
There you go, “read the posts”… posts in the plural; your argument was made on a completely different page. You shouldn’t assume that someone who is commenting on one of your posts has read any other of your posts.
Having now read the other posts, the arguments still do not appear to be of any particularly worth. Where is the equally irrelevant section on ‘First Nations in Science’, or ‘Conservatives in Science’? It would appear that the excising of the ‘Women in Science’ section was a de-politicizing of the entry. While you argue that wasn’t the intent, I argue that was the result, and results interest me far more than intents. Your argument boils down to you being upset because the sub section was in accord with your socio-political bias, and so feel the need to respond in shallow snarky insults that you mistake for biting criticism.
LikeLike
“You shouldn’t assume that someone who is commenting on one of your posts has read any other of your posts.”
I don’t assume that they have done so, I just assume that somebody who wants to speak with a modicum of authority about what arguments I have put forward has bothered to do their homework. If they are foolish enough to make assertion without doing their homework than I assume they are going to end up looking a bit silly.
“Having now read the other posts, the arguments still do not appear to be of any particularly worth. Where is the equally irrelevant section on ‘First Nations in Science’”
…and you straight away demonstrate that you have NOT read the arguments I have made on this topic. I mean I guess I good go around copying and pasting bits of my own blog on to my own comment section because somebody firstly can’t reason their way through why they are making a flawed argument and secondly can’t be bothered to find the place where I already pointed out WHY it was a flawed argument but I really can’t think of any reason why I would want to.
“It would appear that the excising of the ‘Women in Science’ section was a de-politicizing of the entry.”
It was the opposite of that. It was the removal of relevant information for political reasons. the removal was a political act. The existence of the information was ‘political’ only in so far as there exist a political position that regards women being involved in science as a bad thing. Notably the removal of information was done by a person who does take that political stance. Hence the removal was a political act. The reason given for the removal have all been shown to be spurious in so far as they apply to other sections that were not removed.
“Your argument boils down to you being upset…”
I’m not remotely upset. I’m amused. It is funny – in a sort of pathetic sort of way. It is like watching David Brent try to run an office.
“…so feel the need to respond in shallow snarky in”
Well, so far you haven’t managed any substantive points. Indeed, collectively the various defenders of Voxopedia that have dropped by have really own managed to recycle the talking points Vox provided.
But, tell you what. If you can put together an actual good-faith critique of the arguments I’ve used, I’ll respond without any snark.
LikeLike
I am “defending” Infogalactic simply through a desire to have another voice, with another bias, in that arena. I actually expect it to remain a rather quiet and infrequently visited backwater of the internet. I don’t expect Wikipedia to be unseated until a self programming artificial intelligence is set to the task of creating a precise and evolving encyclopaedia that removes as much of the human bias as is possible. I have a suspicion that you, and many others, will recoil in horror from what it produces.
After looking for them, I had read your arguments, I simply found them to be entirely insufficient in swaying the case.
“As the (sub)topic was ‘Science and society’, the role of half+ of humanity in science could hardly be called irrelevant. You are aware that women are part of society, right?” “Gender and gender roles are an important part of the social aspects of most fields.”
The sole purpose to single out ‘women in science’ is an ideologically driven one, as every demographic, so matter how small, is a part of society. Your reason may be that you believe the dominance of men in the field is primarily or exclusively due to discrimination, and you wish to draw attention to the fact that there have been many women who have contributed to the field. The most likely motivation for this is to advance the agenda of greater participation by women; that is a bias held by many. The agenda may even be laudatory, since I am not convinced by Vox Day’s arguments that the impact of more women working in the field is a net negative to scientific advancement (while I do expect the preoccupation with counting genitalia and surface albedo is having a strong negative impact). That doesn’t mean it has a place on the main ‘Science’ page. I would suggest you keep gender and gender roles out of the section rather than open the main page to the counter argument that women and minorities are not represented in science due to a statistical imbalance in interest and ability.
“Having short sections on a main page is what helps an online encyclopedia work – it allows people to find topics of interest.”
That topic is of interest to those with an agenda to highlight a specific demographic for ideological reasons. Can you then make an argument to exclude other agenda driven desires to include or exclude any other demographic in that section? Conservatives make up almost the same percentage of the population as women, and are also very underrepresented in science. While I am sure that you can come up with a myriad of justifications for that, I challenge you to do so without being disgusted by it if an alt-right person used the exact same justifications for women and minorities being under represented.
“Should there be a men in science page? Looks like you’ve made one already by deleting all the women from the ‘Science’ page. I doubt a ‘Men in science’ page is neccesary but it is a better idea than having a page called ‘science’ and only mentioning men.”
A ‘Men in Science’ section would be as pointless and ideologically driven as one specific to women. An argument could be put forward that some of the advances and discoveries made by women deserve inclusion in the cursory history of science subsection, that does not appear to be the argument you are making. In fact, were you to become an editor and add a few significant women in the history timeline, and those were in turn deleted, I would be far more inclined to take your charge of anti-female bias seriously.
LikeLike
A substantive reply here https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/a-longer-reply-to-a-passing-comment-on-women-in-science/
LikeLike
It’s rather telling that VD surrounds himself with such mediocrity, isn’t it?
LikeLike
It is – worrying as well that apparently they can’t think about women in any terms other than politically or as sexual objects.
LikeLike
I’m not sure they’re thinking at all. From what I can see, they’re just parroting talking points Vox feeds them.
Which I suppose is what minions do, but still.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fair point – not much use having minions at all if they start thinking for themselves.
LikeLike
[…] So below is a reply to Machiavelli Ai whose comment can be read in full here: https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/voxopedia-where-information-about-women-goes-to-b… […]
LikeLike
[…] New Wiki Erases Women […]
LikeLike