Wikipedia has been abused by biased, activist editors for years unfortunately. It's done massive harm to the reliability and trustworthiness of a once incredible project for organizing human knowledge. The tools are there to correct this of course, but they require extensive time and energy to use, and honest editors face incredible levels of bad-faith procedural resistance.
Thanks for bringing these particular cases to light.
I know somoene who programs various platforms to be biased towards all things queer/pro-trans and all the language that they use and viewpoints they believe. So I know not to trust Wikipedia and AI tools too.
For probably ten years Wikipedia has been locked down cover to cover woke propaganda. It is truly Wokepedia. Do not give a penny to the Outlaw Jimmy Wales when he comes begging. He has all the woke billionaire funding he needs.
Wikipedia is hypocritical to claim that anyone can edit. Kellie-Jay Keen and Graham Linehan have been blocked from editing defamatory statements in their pages.
It's no better in French, unfortunately. I didn't know about the behind the scene fights but I sure had notice the use of "they/them" pronouns... Neutrality is completely out of the window.
Looks to me that the candid thing to do would be to publish the dialogue that occurred in fashioning the editing. A lift, but in the absence of true consensus, which might point to simmering resentment, bringing it all out in the open would at least offer a little bit of an overview of the issues, and let readers decide for themselves.
This is so frustrating, thanks for illuminating the story.
If anyone wants to help the world come to their senses, this is a place where steady careful work can make a difference. You can create an anonymous account and wow, it sure would be nice if the SEGM Wikipedia entry accurately reflected our purpose!
Keep fighting the good fight in the real world. It produces news, news produces reliable sources for Wikipedia. Every year, their idea laundered sources have more real news to compete with. Currently TRAs are having their hissy-fit on the page of For Women Scotland. None of that will change the UK Supreme Court Ruling.
Also, the Boston globe had an op ed about the WPATH interference with the systematic reviews: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/04/opinion/youth-gender-medicine-wpath-soc-8/
Good and vital reporting. Sadly, not surprising
Wikipedia has been abused by biased, activist editors for years unfortunately. It's done massive harm to the reliability and trustworthiness of a once incredible project for organizing human knowledge. The tools are there to correct this of course, but they require extensive time and energy to use, and honest editors face incredible levels of bad-faith procedural resistance.
Thanks for bringing these particular cases to light.
I know somoene who programs various platforms to be biased towards all things queer/pro-trans and all the language that they use and viewpoints they believe. So I know not to trust Wikipedia and AI tools too.
Can you go into more detail about this? I know you're constrained by anonymity, but I'd like to know whatever else you feel you're able to share.
Private message me
For probably ten years Wikipedia has been locked down cover to cover woke propaganda. It is truly Wokepedia. Do not give a penny to the Outlaw Jimmy Wales when he comes begging. He has all the woke billionaire funding he needs.
Thank you for documenting this.
Wikipedia is hypocritical to claim that anyone can edit. Kellie-Jay Keen and Graham Linehan have been blocked from editing defamatory statements in their pages.
That is so sad and Orwellian
It's no better in French, unfortunately. I didn't know about the behind the scene fights but I sure had notice the use of "they/them" pronouns... Neutrality is completely out of the window.
Update for the record. On October 21, YFNS was indefinitely topic banned "from transgender topics, broadly construed": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people_closed
Check out the Wikipedia page for the HHS review of the evidence… very much written to support trans activism.
Looks to me that the candid thing to do would be to publish the dialogue that occurred in fashioning the editing. A lift, but in the absence of true consensus, which might point to simmering resentment, bringing it all out in the open would at least offer a little bit of an overview of the issues, and let readers decide for themselves.
This is so frustrating, thanks for illuminating the story.
If anyone wants to help the world come to their senses, this is a place where steady careful work can make a difference. You can create an anonymous account and wow, it sure would be nice if the SEGM Wikipedia entry accurately reflected our purpose!
So how do we combat that???
Keep fighting the good fight in the real world. It produces news, news produces reliable sources for Wikipedia. Every year, their idea laundered sources have more real news to compete with. Currently TRAs are having their hissy-fit on the page of For Women Scotland. None of that will change the UK Supreme Court Ruling.