BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL STAFF In a bustling feminist bookstore in Madrid, 17 women gathered to address one of the internet’s most persistent gender disparities. These ladies, members of Spain’s Wikiesfera, worked hard to enhance women’s representation on Wikipedia, a platform where roughly 15 percent of volunteer editors are women and less than a fifth of content is about women. “The numbers are pretty terrifying,” said Patricia Horrillo, who has been leading efforts to correct the disparity for nearly a decade. Horrillo founded Wikiesfera, a group dedicated to increasing the visibility of women on Wikipedia, by building a community of dedicated editors. “For the first time, civil society has the power to make women visible,” Horrillo said. “History has always been told by those in power – now we have that power.” Wikiesfera is part of a global movement that includes groups such as Whose Knowledge? in the United States, WikiDonne in Italy, and Les Sans Pages in Switzerland, all of which aim to enhance Wikipedia’s gender balance. The foundations of inequality: a historical overview The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, acknowledges gender prejudice on its platform. “Wikipedia is powered by humans, so it is vulnerable to human biases,” the foundation states. Historically, Wikipedia has been predominantly edited by men who rely on previously published information. Unfortunately, many of these sources have historically excluded women, resulting in major gaps in documenting women’s accomplishments. This gender disparity has long been observed, motivating the Wikimedia Foundation to fund organizations such as Wikiesfera in their efforts to address it. These efforts seek to acknowledge and preserve women’s contributions by encouraging civil society to contribute to the world’s largest encyclopedia. Creating change: the role of the community Wikiesfera members meet regularly to produce and translate Wikipedia entries about well-known women. “We’re writing history today, right here,” said Encina Villanueva, a dedicated participant since 2016. Villanueva frequently changes existing pages to emphasize women’s accomplishments rather than their attractiveness or ties with notable men. Celia Hernández-García, another Wikiesfera member, attended her first event in 2017, after discovering the group online. Hernández-García, a secondary school teacher, had struggled to obtain female-focused coursework for her students. “At one point I sat down with a textbook and went through all the references of men and women – the difference was mind-blowing,” she recalled. Wikiesfera provided her with a clear approach to addressing this imbalance. The encouraging environment that Horrillo promotes is critical. She explains that many women are hesitant to contribute because they question their abilities to “write history.” Horrillo’s objective for Wikiesfera is to provide the motivation and guidance required to overcome these doubts. The group’s focus on women came naturally, allowing Horrillo to combine her passions for technology and advocacy. Forming the future: education and influence Wikiesfera’s activities attract men and women of various ages, with the majority being women aged 40 to 60. “These are women who have time, often they don’t have children or dependants,” Horrillo noted. This demographic insight is critical, as the time-intensive nature of editing Wikipedia is a significant barrier for many potential female editors. Other obstacles have been identified through research, including a scarcity of reputable sources detailing women’s achievements and a higher risk of women’s biographies being recommended for deletion. Despite these challenges, Horrillo continues determined to include women in Wikipedia. “What we’re doing is super important because there’s nothing like Wikipedia,” she said. During a recent session, the group contributed 33 entries to Wikipedia, including a page about Luisa Roldán, Spain’s first known female sculptor, and a Spanish-language translation of an impressionist painting by Marie Bracquemond. Horrillo describes each entry as a tiny but crucial step toward resolving the historical institutions that have oppressed women. “You have to start somewhere,” she said. “It’s a way to fight injustice, but without being overwhelmed. If you start to ask what can I do to change the world, the answer is a bit complicated. But this is something that is within our grasp.” Wikiesfera’s efforts are more than just adding content; they are rewriting history to include women’s perspectives and achievements. They are creating a more inclusive and accurate historical record, one Wikipedia page at a time.The post Bridging the wiki gender gap first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL STAFF According to the FBI, elder fraud has reached alarming levels, with Americans aged 60 and over losing more than $3 billion in scams by 2023. To put this astronomical figure in context, Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour recently made headlines for being the first concert to make $1 billion, which pales in comparison to the financial losses incurred by older Americans. The effects of these scams go beyond financial loss. Victims frequently endure trauma, intense humiliation, and self-doubt, which can strain their relationships and undermine their mental and physical health. Teaching seniors how to recognize and avoid fraud, as well as how to report it, is critical to combatting this prevalent problem. Why are seniors so vulnerable? The FBI’s latest study emphasizes the prevalence of elder fraud. In 2023, complaints from Americans over the age of 60 to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) climbed by 14 percent, with an 11 percent increase in projected financial losses. These figures certainly underestimate the full scale of the problem, given only approximately half of internet crime reports indicate the victim’s age. Furthermore, these estimates do not include phone, postal, or in-person scams, which many victims do not report owing to shame, fear, or ignorance about what to do. Older folks are frequently targeted because they are more trusting and polite, have financial savings, own homes, and have decent credit—all appealing features to scammers. Furthermore, elders may be less familiar with new technologies, leaving them more vulnerable to tech-related scams. Many older people retired before the widespread adoption of technologies such as cell phones, leaving them without workplace training, which frequently includes lectures on preventing online fraud. Common scams and their impacts In 2023, the most commonly reported type of elder fraud was technical support scams. Other scams include romance schemes, online shopping swindles, and investment frauds. While cyber scams are common, investment scams are the most financially devastating, accounting for nearly half of all reported losses among people aged 60 and up last year. Fraudulent call centers are known for targeting older persons, accounting for 40 percent of all recorded elder fraud incidents in 2023 and causing at least $770 million in losses. These frauds frequently use advanced technology such as artificial intelligence for voice cloning and deepfake movies to trick victims.  In one major example in 2022, over 600 victims lost approximately $40 million due to a single timeshare fraud. In the latter half of 2023, scammers posing as government officials or technical assistance agents persuaded victims to liquidate their assets or buy precious metals, leading to losses of more than $55 million. Strategies for prevention Elder fraud can be prevented by education and monitoring. The FBI provides some ways to assist older Americans in safeguarding themselves. If there is an imminent danger, contact the police immediately. Be cautious with unsolicited phone calls, mail, and door-to-door services. Do not click on unsolicited links sent by email or text; never accept email attachments from unknown sources. Before doing business with someone or a company, look up their names, emails, phone numbers, and addresses. Most genuine businesses have an online presence. Plus, if it is a scam others may already have provided information on it. Never give your personal information, money, jewelry, gift cards, cheques, or wire transfers to unconfirmed parties. Keep your computer’s anti-virus and security software up to date. Use pop-up blockers to avoid clicking on fraudulent messages, and if one does appear, unplug from the internet and turn off your device. Do not allow remote access to your devices to unknown individuals. If you are asked to lie to your bank or keep a secret from family or friends, it is most certainly a scam. Resist the need to respond quickly; respectable businesses will not rush your financial selections. Trust your gut feeling. What to do if you’ve been scammed If you become a scam victim, take immediate action to protect your identity and financial assets. Contact your banking institutions to have your accounts protected and monitored for unusual activity. Report it to your local FBI field office or leave a tip online if the crime took place over the Internet. Include specific details in your report, such as names, dates, contact methods, phone numbers, emails, addresses, payment methods, and interaction descriptions. Keep the original papers, emails, faxes, and correspondence logs. Support from trusted individuals or groups, such as the AARP Fraud Watch Network and the Cybercrime Support Network’s Peer Support Program, can be extremely beneficial. If the emotional impact is overpowering, consult a counselor, therapist, or medical expert. Scammers targeted former FBI director William Webster at the age of 90, indicating that no one is immune. Reporting these assaults and sharing experiences are critical steps in addressing the problem.The post Tackling the elder fraud epidemic in America first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

Under questioning from lawmakers, an intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security refused to say Wednesday whether the Biden administration’s border policies increase security threats to America.  Republicans asked Ken Wainstein, DHS under secretary for intelligence and analysis, about recent reports of illegal border crossers with ties to terrorists.  Wainstein acknowledged during testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee that America is in “a very fraught time” regarding security threats, as lawmakers pressed him on record rates of illegal immigration. “Nobody seems to want to say [that] opening the doors on the border has exposed us tremendously,” Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., told Wainstein.  Bishop mentioned this month’s arrest of eight illegal aliens with suspected connections to the terrorist group Islamic State, or ISIS, as well as 400 border crossers whom DHS recently identified as part of an ISIS-affiliated smuggling operation.  “Are you prepared to say that opening the border has subjected the United States [to an] … extravagantly increased risk of significant terrorism?” Bishop asked. “I’m prepared to say that we’re hyperfocused on the threat coming across the border,” answered Wainstein, an appointee of President Joe Biden. He added that “we’re not trying to sugarcoat” the problem. Wainstein, a lawyer, previously was assistant attorney general for national security under President George W. Bush and later his homeland security adviser. Wainstein also told Bishop that no evidence exists that those who entered the U.S. via an ISIS-tied smuggling network in the past three years “are terrorist operatives.” Bishop pressed further, asking why Wainstein would blame Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel and  blame “domestic violent extremists” for terror threats in America but “keep quiet” about the Department of Homeland Security’s management of the border.  Wainstein avoided the question, saying that Oct. 7 “energized” bad actors in the U.S. to target Jews. He promised that lawmakers could hear more details about the border situation in a classified briefing.  Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., asked Wainstein whether America’s potential vulnerability to terrorists at the border is a “self-inflicted wound.”  Wainstein replied that he doesn’t “buy into” that idea.   Crane followed up: “Wouldn’t you say, sir, that you can have all the intelligence in the world, but if you don’t have leaders who are willing to execute on that intelligence, it doesn’t really matter, does it?”  The DHS under secretary replied that his agency “could use more resources” to keep terrorists away from the border, but didn’t mention Biden’s immigration and border security policies.  DHS didn’t respond before publication to a request for comment on Republicans’ criticism. The department reportedly hasn’t found 50 of the 400 migrants smuggled through the ISIS-affiliated network, Fox News reported.  The post Top DHS Official Refuses to Answer Whether Biden’s Border Policies Invite Terrorists appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Biggest Non-Secret Out of Secret Recording Leak Ever: Labour's NetZero Plans to Cost Britain Bigly

Free speech advocates are ripping the U.S. Supreme Court‘s refusal to protect the First Amendment from government-tech censorship collusion. State and individual plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri provided evidence of severe government pressure on Big Tech companies to censor specific users. The majority of the Court ruled, however, on Wednesday that the plaintiffs did not have “standing.” Numerous pro-free speech advocates called out the outrageous, tone deaf decision issued by the majority, including Mark Levin, Jonathan Turley,  and one of the case’s plaintiffs, Dr. Bhattacharya. As MRC President Brent Bozell soberly commented on X (formerly Twitter) about the decision, “Censorship from our government continues unchecked. A devastating loss for free speech.” In the same vein, MRC VP for Free Speech Dan Schneider posted in a hard-hitting X thread, “We have just witnessed a dagger in the heart of the First Amendment's right to free speech. The guarantee of our right to criticize government is lost.”  Schneider continued, “The First Amendment is supposed to guarantee our rights to speak against government power and against the people who wield that power.” But the majority decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Schneider stated, allows government censorship of individuals “unless LATER proven to have violated ... something. She never gets around to explaining what this something is, giving Joe Biden carte blanche license to strong arm Big Tech (and other powerful allies) to erase dissenting views.”  Agreeing with Schneider, MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris castigated the ruling as  a “fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment.” Other free speech advocates also expressed their critiques of the Court on X. Nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin mourned an “[a]wful Supreme Court duck” from multiple supposedly conservative judges. The Federalist CEO Sean Davis posted, “The Supreme Court's ruling and opinion … is an abomination that ignores both the facts and the law. I never thought I would see the Supreme Court rubber stamp the most egregious and illegal censorship campaign in American history, but here we are. What a joke.” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the plaintiffs, notedthat social media censorship will now be “a key issue in the upcoming election.” He urged“voters should ask every candidate for office down to dog catcher where they stand on the power of government to censor.” Schneider concurred with Bhattacharya’s assessment: “Nov 5 can't come soon enough.” Legal analyst Jonathan Turley concluded: “This leaves free speech protections, for now, to the political system. This is why free speech should be the central issue in this presidential election.” He appeared on a Fox News interview and was just as vocal, saying, “This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing.” Jeff Clark, a former assistant attorney general for the Civil Division in the Trump DOJ, also tied the decision to the election, adding, “The Judicial Branch checking out of this issue as it is postured in Murthy cannot be the final word or else censorship to maintain leftist orthodoxies about important matters like COVID and elections will continue and expand.” Meanwhile, Kara Frederick, the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center, described the ruling, “The government says that the government can work with Big Tech to censor the speech of Americans.”  Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning bashed the ruling in a statement, “The contorted logic that those in the federal government who abused their power with the worst censorship operation in U.S. history should be protected under the guise that they did not voluntarily release enough details of their abuse for the plaintiffs to achieve standing, gives jet fuel to these agencies’ unchecked power to continue abusing the Constitution.” Legal expert and Article III Project President Mike Davis pointed out that, contrary to the majority ruling, Big Tech companies are not private anymore, with “antitrust amnesty, government grants” and eagerness to censor at government behest. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Wednesday morning’s episode of ABC’s The View began like any other, with discussions covering the dramas of the political world and making ridiculous constitutional claims. Though easily forgotten, The View exists under the ABC’s News umbrella, though its decorum and general output does not match this description. It is no surprise when co-host Sunny Hostin reported more like a gossip columnist on passive aggressive and baseless insinuations regarding a politician's love life, as well as ignorant claims of the constitution from moderator Whoopi Goldberg.  Republican Senator of South Carolina, Tim Scott’s relationship status has been one of Hostin’s favorite talking point in past segments. Progressive news stations have had a quite strange fascination with the relationship status of Scott in the past months, with conspiracies of alternative sexual orientation being an underlying discussion.     Hostin is not absent in these beliefs, making her words regarding Tim Scott’s fiancé even more passive aggressive: SUNNY HOSTIN: I mean, I know tomorrow it's actually going to be Tim Scott and his fiancé. I'm going to tune in for that because now you have someone with a fiancé. A woman. I wonder if she's going to talk. I –  he says he loves Donald Trump. I want to know what – SARA HAINES: What are you listening for?  HOSTIN: I want to know what she has to say. I'm very interested -- she's -- he's the only vice presidential candidate that’s coming with someone else. I want to know what the thinking is behind it and I want to know if she's going to say anything. GOLDBERG: What the thinking is behind bringing her?  HOSTIN: Yeah! GOLDBERG: I can tell you. The thinking is: ‘Hey, it's my girl! And we are together.’ [Laughter]  Hostin, who must be noted as the show's sitting lawyer who provides legal notes, seemed to greatly emphasize the shock that Scott was now involved, further playing into previous claims of his being closeted and the misinformation which surrounds it. Yet this major point which Hostin set out to make was discounted by fellow host Alyssa Farah Griffin, as she pointed out that, “They’re all bringing spouses – Cause J.D. Vance has his spouse this morning.” Hostin, looking annoyed, responded, “So never mind.” This was not the end of the ignorant display, as host Whoopi Goldberg had this to say regarding the Supreme Court and the Constitution: And so there we are. The constitution … or that. The constitution and all those folks that say we're constitutionalists, we do – we believe – they haven’t read it because if they read it, they would be able to say, no, you can't do this because the Constitution is put together. And it's not perfect, we chip it up, we break it up, we do what we need to do with it, because that's what the Constitution is supposed to be but this idea of coming in and pooping all over it didn't seem like a winning strategy for the American people. That's my concern. So the gossip column concluded its first segment, leaving its audience with even more misinformation.   The transcript is below, click "expand" to read: ABC’s  The View 6/26/2024 11:08:04 AM EST (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: Will people tune in? Will people tune in is my question? I mean, I know tomorrow it's actually going to be Tim Scott and his fiancé. I'm going to tune in for that because now you have someone with a fiancé. A woman. I wonder if she's going to talk. I –  he says he loves Donald Trump. I want to know what – SARA HAINES: What are you listening for?  HOSTIN: I want to know what she has to say. I'm very interested -- she's -- he's the only vice presidential candidate that’s coming with someone else. I want to know what the thinking is behind it and I want to know if she's going to say anything. GOLDBERG: What the thinking is behind bringing her?  HOSTIN: Yeah! GOLDBERG: I can tell you. The thinking is: ‘Hey, it's my girl! And we are together.’ [Laughter]  ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Well they’re all bringing spouses –  [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: Cause J.D. Vance has his spouse this morning. [Crosstalk] HAINES: They are bringing spouses –  BEHAR: – Oh they are? GOLDBERG: Okay, so everybody is -- so there will be like – HOSTIN: So never mind. GOLDBERG: This is my wife, my spouse and this is who she is. She's going to tell her to do what I tell her to do.  (…) 11:09:27 AM EST GOLDBERG: And so there we are. The constitution … or that. The constitution and all those folks that say we're constitutionalists, we do – we believe – they haven’t read it because if they read it, they would be able to say, no, you can't do this because the Constitution is put together. And it's not perfect, we chip it up, we break it up, we do what we need to do with it, because that's what the Constitution is supposed to be but this idea of coming in and pooping all over it didn't seem like a winning strategy for the American people. That's my concern. We'll be right back.

Briana Joy Gray Realizes It’s Time to Stop Voting for Democrats

LAWFARE: Biden Administration's Intimidation of Texas Children's Hospital Whistleblowers Is CHILLING

Matt Yglesias Hosts an Electoral College Whine Fest After Latest Nate Silver Predictions

Lefties Are Big Mad at AIPAC for Costing Jamaal Bowman His Seat in Congress