Conventions, whether set by standards or by common usage, are not always in line with the most intuitive or the "most accurate" approach. Would for example that the electrical engineers would stop writing that current flow is in the direction of motion of positive charges rather than that of electrons, we will all be "more accurate".
As has been noted, the relative values of weight percent are the same as those for mass percent. I would add, this is true whether we are on earth, on the moon, or on Jupiter. Only when we are in a non-inertial frame (no $g$ for the conversion), do we have any reason to question the truth of the convention.
The term wt% is used in a diverse number of communities beyond the area of your focus (geology), including especially chemistry, chemical engineering, and materials science/engineering. The term is strongly ingrained in those communities. The convention is only "not accurate" in the sense of corrupting the semantics, not in the sense of corrupting the accuracy of any calculations we do with the numbers. Staying with the convention of wt% will make your reports readable across the larger communities. Indeed, switching to your own preferred convention of ma%, essentially just for the purity of semantics, may cause more confusion or aggravation for others in your own community as well as in the outside communities. They will have to "think twice" to translate the new notation to their own.
Otherwise, you are almost akin to a lone wolf crying in a big forest on this one. Allow the terminology to evolve on its own. Alternatively, become active in professional societies such as IUPAC or ASME or ... where such decisions start to take root to action, make your voice heard, and see what you learn at that level.