Do you mind going into a bit more depth here? The GFW was pretty useful re: the references it pointed us too. What makes it unreliable?
(genuinely curious, clearly still learning here)
(genuinely curious, clearly still learning here)
While citations are preferred wherever
possible, we do not require them. Much
of our wiki is primary source material,
sometimes added anonymously in order to
avoid backlash against the whistleblower.
Original research is welcome.
You can see this in the list of out-of-scope items. For example, no "apologia for misogynist, anti-feminist, oppressive, or other harmful actions or ideas" is allowed - in practice this tends to include stuff like having an unfeminine attitude to sex and sexuality, doing sex work, being friends with anyone who does, opposing bans on it, being kinky, or complaining about any bad experiences you've had with other mainstream feminist women including systematic online and offline harassment (which is a serious problem for some groups of women).
If you think about the guidelines it's easy to tell they exclude some women's feelings and lived experiences, but there's no way to tell which. The linked page makes it sound like the policy affects oppressors when it's mostly those who are worst off that get screwed.
Am I misunderstanding you? If your point of view is against sex work and "unfeminine" attitudes towards sex (wtf does that even mean anyway), it seems to me that you are being misogynist and quite possibly oppressive. I don't doubt those people exist, I've met quite a few of them, but that doesn't say anything directly about what the geek feminism wiki does and represents.
> If you think about the guidelines it's easy to tell they exclude some women's feelings and lived experiences, but there's no way to tell which. The linked page makes it sound like the policy affects oppressors when it's mostly those who are worst off that get screwed.
Is there any evidence to suggest that geek feminism wiki does that? Are viewpoints on sex work or sexuality skewed towards one point of view, or are there many points of view about those subjects on the wiki?
No, that's just sex-negative feminism. It's pretty common. In fact, the two major opponents to pornography have always been the conservative right and the feminist left. Opinion on BDSM is usually a litmus test for sex-positivity or sex-negativity.
As a whole, GFW appears to be sex-positive, with a few caveats as to how it understands objectification.
What you are saying is very wishy washy. You say dubious and subjective gender politics, but what does that even mean? Also, how exactly does accepting someone's self-reporting about lived experiences lead to a single point of view and allow for misrepresentation? If we are excepting self reporting and lived experiences, we are by definition excepting quite a large set of points of view.
Well, in theory, yes. Not at all in practice. The vast majority of people who edit the wiki are part of a general postmodern feminist hivemind, and those who espouse more traditional feminist viewpoints about gender equality without the vast baggage of sociological theory that is taken for granted tend to be reverted. You can read the editorial guidelines, it's all in there.