Dear old Wikipedia, that reliable tool of lefty

propriety, has come under attack from The New York

Times, because their (voluntary, unpaid) contributors are overwhelmingly male.

The problem, it seems, is not with the relative unwillingness of women to contribute to such a selfless enterprise. No: it's with the

competitive, fact-obsessed (can you say phallocentric?) internet-geek culture which, by its very nature, discourages the ladies from

participating.

According to "Kat Walsh, a policy analyst and longtime Wikipedia contributor, 'The big problem is that the current Wikipedia community is

what came about by letting things develop naturally...'"

Well, indeed. We can't have that, now, can we? I mean, "things developing naturally?" Why, there's no telling where that sort of thing might

lead! It could mean the end of all life as we know it!! Possibly even a gold-based currency!!!

But seriously:

Is there any conceivable circumstance in which the great & the good of our day would congratulate men for doing more than their fair share?

Is there any conceivable circumstance in which they would criticize women for not pulling their weight?

Assuming that the answer to both questions is "no" - what does this mean?

* * * * *

Hat tip as per usual .