The only problem with this approach is that anyone can do it. So, farmers who specifically believe that dairy products *are* good for the bones could also organise a "mass editing" of Wikipedia too. The point is that this doesn't make them right either. The best (and only) approach for a community like Wikipedia is to rely on solid, sourced evidence and to be prepared to present both sides of a debate where there is substantial contention. Otherwise you will (quite rightly) be labelled as pushing a POV (point of view).

Let's also remember that Wikipedia has done progressive movements and the Left some favours - even with its policy of presenting both sides of an argument, it has proved a good (secondary) reference source for countless govt and corporate atrocities that we need to learn about and talk about in our various campaigns. On that basis, it would not be wise to annoy them publicly. Let's recall also that Wikipedia has sufficiently annoyed a merry band of Bushites to feel compelled to set up "Conservapedia" too - that some people on the loony right *want* a biased reference source demonstrates the weakness of their position.

Lastly if the author of this call is to be involved in antispeciesist editing, could they use a spellchecker?

movments => movements
truthfull => truthful
there choice => their choice
extreemly => extremely
coctail => cocktail
million uses => million users
way want => may want

etc...

Oh please don't it will be counter productive.

looks like its going to be edited by lots, well any way an alternative to this is
 http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party the alternative, a sort of mickey take, i laughed hope you do to, oh and you can add to it. INJOY

Mass Editing = Mass Awakening = Mass Twat. Leave Wiki alone we got enough nutty people online anyway cocking things up anyway.

Won't make a difference. If edits aren't sourced, properly cited, etc then any of your statements will get gradually removed.
The only way to effect change on that site is from the inside, making lots of useful edits to build up a reputation and then being unyielding and disruptive when it comes to defending the edits that you really want to keep. That's why their "Anarchism" articles are full of "anarcho-capitalist" doublethink. You need to play the game and twist the rules.
You need to be a lawyer or a saint to improve contentious articles. One weekend of concerted activity will be viewed as disruptive and attract mass reversion of all your changes, even the well-supported ones.

What a load of balls. You'll come across as whiny, manipulative destructive twats. Which, in fact, you are. Wikipedia is not meant to be a left wing tool. It's open access, that's the point. Users have all kinds of opinions, which hopefully aggregate out to something relatively unbiased. You'll just aggravate wiki users, and make anarchists look dumb.

If you want to see how bad an open access info site with a left wing bias can be, look at indymedia. It's full of junk - conspiracy theories, rubbish rants, pointless actions like this one.

If you have any decent, referenced information for an article make the edit. That's how wikipedia works.

Wikirage helps people see which wikipedia entries are getting the most edits by unique IP's on an hourly, daily, weekly or geological era basis. Milk hasn't really got in the top hundred this weekend.
 http://www.wikirage.com/

Unless you were drawing attention in the last 3 hours to usual suspect & revered prophet of Mormonism & Yankee Jesus, the holy brother Joseph Smith Jr who has jumped back into the top 100 at position 82 narrowly beating the other usual suspect for neutrality & citation debate - Johhny Depp who is just about holding position 83. This has been a sustained competition of editing & vandalism ongoing for the last aeon. But closer look at the record shows that it's not meat-eating but polygamy & the historical list of Mormon founder's 28 wives ranging in age from 14 to 58 - that keeps getting changed (on Joseph Smith not Johnny Depp).