The Wikipedia entry does gamergaters no favours at all. Basically, it portrays them as the misogynist, racist turds they are.Yes.
Because nobody can edit that page and it's not one-sided at all and there's no Talk. It's written in stone. A Bible for the age of the Interwebz.
Because nobody can edit Zoe's, Anita's or Brianna's pages, either, and remove any criticism of them.
Because Wikipedia is the be all and end all of... well, just about everything.
From Criticism of Wikipedia at... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia:
Wikipedia... Written by volunteers worldwide. Almost anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles.Someone else pointed to the GamerGate page on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Moaner pronounces ED as "crap". Except when she agrees with it. (Note that Moaner doesn't seem to object to the doxxing of Prok or members of the JLU there... Again, people she doesn't like. Or at least... agree with.)
Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals. Most academics, historians, teachers and journalists, reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mixture of truth, half truth, and some falsehoods. Articles in the Times Higher Education magazine, The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies, concluding that the first undermines freedom of thought and the second; the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the majority “weight” of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information. Novelist and critic A. S. Byatt has described this consensus populism as leading to the tyranny of the majority. A New York Times article concluded that the casual reader is not aware of these controversial policies because he/she thinks Wikipedia has free expression views.
Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black noted how articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic. An article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.
Scholar and author Mark Bauerlein perceives Wikipedia as a threat for being a "monolith enclosing the knowledge worlds of students". The Academic Integrity at MIT handbook for students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: 'Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Academic Source: The bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable – use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research."