WTF Wikipedia

ISTR implied that she thought she was a "trans woman"

I remember that. IMO Jack is someone for whom the term 'trans woman' is almost accurate, so obviously that must not be allowed

MRAs trashed Penelope Leach’s page a while ago because she wrote a book they didn’t agree with.
Wikipedia should sanction anyone who deliberately posts lies to discredit someone.

On the more humorous side, I did read of a professor who deliberately posted misinformation on there, then set his students an essay on the subject.
A good lesson on checking sources and wider reading was learned

Agree with all that, Where.

Wikipedia was a great idea, but those who thought it up failed to acknowledge that it was open to abuse from the start - if anyone can edit it, anyone will, especially an anyone with an agenda. (And not just the transagenda. I expect a lot of political subjects are full of propaganda and shit.) It was optimistic of them - or wilfully blind - to not foresee this sort of thing happening, and taking measures to stop it. Either lock down certain subjects, or plain don't have them. If people won't play nice, Wikipedia could take their ball back and not let them play at all! But no, they allow this garbage to continue.

But, on the plus side it has alerted me to the fact that I absolutely cannot trust one damned thing written on Wikipedia. And that I absolutely will not finance them with donations ever again.

This is how my gendefluid ex used to identify :

Non-binary(AFAB)

Assigned Female At birth

She was NUTS

If I've got the pronoun wrong it is a genuine mistake. I thought she'd gone back to identifying as a woman.

How can JM be trans exclusionary when she was actually trans herself?

She's stepped out of line a couple of times, including once where she failed to punctuate correctly and ISTR implied that she thought she was a "trans woman". TRA Twitter takes a dim view of women saying that.

They're article on "non-binary" is also questionable...

Should Wikipedia HQ be informed?

Please keep those screenshots safe. Wikipedia takes that sort of conspiring pretty seriously.

How can JM be trans exclusionary when she was actually trans herself? These ppl are nuts.

Badmoons I can't actually read any of that but looks there was some sort of vote to get rid of feminists on Wiki? That's sick.

Wow does one of those comments say 'Jack Monroe is a terf'? Monroe is as un- gender critical as they come. It just shows how Stalinist they are. One misjudged 'like' on Twitter and you're an unperson whose Wiki page (if you have one) needs trashing.

Indeedy

The screenshots are out there of Natacha and co-conspirators plotting on how best to remove women like Sheila Jeffries.

Dickipedia! Love that.

on their woman page they say trans people "identity" as women
Have they forgotten transgender females completely? All trans people identity sic as women?

Males literally conspire to remove gender critical thought from its pages, and erase feminists from history as told by Diki. Mark Hellen, also known as Natacha Kennedy of the Goldsmiths parish, is one such.

The page on James Dreyfus refers to ‘trans exclusionary radical feminists’ as if that’s a neutral term.

Ive warned my children against using wiki for any actual facts

Ill remind them again though

If you make any comment on the Talk page that goes against the party line, it'll be deleted within two or three hours. That seems odd... surely the point of a Talk page is to discuss the article?

They were asking for money last time I used them. I've given before, but won't now over this issue. Does anyone know how to contact them t tell them this?

Yeah, me too. I first donated way back when when I was relatively young and idealistic. Wikipedia is a fantastic idea but I’m not so keen on Dickipedia.

I’ll save my pennies for Club Gulag.

There's been an ongoing wiki war about the women entries - I'm fairly sure that they've shut out the GC editor and the pro-trans editors are the ones left in charge of those sections.

I'm waiting for them to start 'working' on this Wiki entry. There's an ultimate goal of changing the dictionary definition.

Soon it will be "A woman is sometimes but not always a female human being..."

Talk tab both interesting and frustrating.

That Talk Tab is fantastic. I'm going to read it from start to finish in the bath tonight.

Thanks for that link, pencils.

The intro paragraph says that a "trans woman" is a type of woman. That article in turn says that women are female. That article in turn defines female as, well, the common biological definition. But trans women are not female according to that definition, leading to an internal contradiction. Wikipedia could change its definition of "female" from the biological definition (which would be very strange and need some major sourcing I guess), or change the article "woman" to not define women as female people (again quite strange as that's the definition you'll find in any dictionary, encyclopedia, and from any person you ask on the street), or clarify in this article that the issue of whether "trans women" are or aren't actually women is a point of political debate.

Socialisation shows on those illustrations. The woman is crossing her legs a bit and turning away slightly but the man is upfront and looks very proud.

...or am I just over thinking it?!