Wikipedia definitions of Woman and Transwoman

We ignore at our peril how trans rights activists and men in general are using Wikipedia to influence thinking world wide - but especially on the English Language site.

This is a much bigger problem than TRAs getting the odd Gender Critical website deleted on WordpressDOTcom. It is off-scale dangerous because so many people refer to Wikipedia for information, imagining that it is gospel truth, the last word on any subject.

Current Mumsnet thread: Wikipedia cutting out women

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3648064-wikipedia-cutting-out-women#prettyPhoto

• - -

Covers failure of diversity, failure of retention of Wikipedia editors and how damned clumsy it is to edit!

www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

• - -

If they bother to click through links in the footers to "References", "See Also" or "Links" they will be taken to materials and sites supporting the narrative.

Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?

Mid-20s males and retired males - are the largest demographics

10% - 20% women of various ages - significant under-representation

9% of Editors are women on English Language Wikipedia

more info:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia%3F

Nine out of ten Wikipedians continue to be men: Editor Survey (2012)

blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/27/nine-out-of-ten-wikipedians-continue-to-be-men/

Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) (2011)

suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/

Wikimedia Reseach:Teahouse

"The Wikipedia Teahouse is a many-to-many support space designed specifically for new editors.

The Teahouse project was launched in February 2012 by Wikimedia Foundation Fellows and WMF staff in partnership with volunteers from the English Wikipedia community. Teahouse began as a pilot project on English Wikipedia, with a goal of learning whether a social approach to new editor support could retain more new editors there."

"Teahouse" Encouraging and Supporting Women's Participation

meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse#Encouraging_women's_participation

Wikipedia:Teahouse

"Welcome to the Teahouse...
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

@Badgerwood wikipedia can't unilaterally decide to redefine things based on a minority opinion, the articles should be based on facts! Both articles locked for editting, if enough people complain they'll have to change it back? I think these are new edits but the protection makes me feel like it's at least semi-official.

Thank you (belatedly) for spotting this and posting about it!

Wikipedia absolutely can "unilaterally decide to redefine things based on a minority opinion". But only If we let it.

Wikipedia content is based on "consensus"

Wikipedia: Five Pillars

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
4. Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility
5. Wikipedia has no firm rules

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

for more detail see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Wikipedia:Consensus

"Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This policy describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not), and describes exceptions to the principle that all decisions are made by consensus."

For more detail see (ie. please read it before assuming, questioning and commenting!)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Help:Directory

All Wkipedia Help Topics:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Directory

Getting back to the "Trans woman" page.

This is is "semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it."

Looking at the Protection Log, the only protection listed is for the title of the page. This states that the title was changed from "Transwoman" to "Trans woman" in 2010 and was semi-protected back then.

This is the message on the Edit Page for "Trans Woman"

What can I do?

• If you have a user account, log in first. If you do not yet have an account, you may create one; after 4 days and 10 edits, you will be able to edit semi-protected pages.

• Discuss this page with others.

• For move-protected pages, see requested moves.

• Request that the page's protection level be reduced.

• Find out more about how to get started editing Wikipedia.

• If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, you can submit an edit request, by clicking the button below and following instructions. An established user may then make the change on your behalf. Please check the talk page first in case the issue is already being discussed.

• - -

Wikipedia relies on the public to register as users and then act as editors. Women are not registering so are not part of the discussion. It is not like Twitter, or Mumsnet, where a site owner unilaterally decides which opinions are supported and which are not.

This is a problem for Wikipedia pages about "Notable People". There are strict criteria but they appear to be applied more rigorously to women (a woman who won a Nobel Prize was initially rejected as not being "notable" enough, yet see pages about men whose "notability" is hardly more than "famous in my own back yard".)

@Goosefoot But generally, wiki is always going to be reflective, content changes when peoples ideas change.

Wikipedia is "reflective" of the fact that women are not signing up as Editors. It is "reflective" of men's ideas, of Men's Rights Activists and increasingly of "Genderists".

"Content changes" can occur when a small group of activists mobilises to edit Wikipedia pages in order to change people's ideas.

Looking at the "Talk" Page for "Trans woman" there is some heavy batting by people with male user names (I expect they are men!) with a Gender Critical perspective. They are disputing that the page presents a neutral point of view as per the "Five Pillars" and are getting the usual, "Oh you old Flat Earthers know nothing!" replies.

Wikipedia is a massively influential propaganda tool that is currently in the hands of men - not the people running the website but the members of public editing the wiki - and they are using it against women.

I gave a talk about this recently and used this page to illustrate how Wikipedia reflects certain agendas:

Category:Family and parenting issues groups in the United Kingdom

Check it out - you will be horrified!
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Family_and_parenting_issues_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

(Screenshot - items coloured red to draw attention to how much of the content is decidedly dodgy!)

@2BThatUnnoticed Wiki is hopelessly corrupt and has lost all credibility. Didn’t people see those internal leaks, discussing how they could gradually erase all “terfs” without anyone noticing?

Avoid. Do not click on Wiki.

That is like saying, ^"There are organisations producing training packs for primary schools that teach kids they can change gender. They are rubbish. Just don't read them.."

If we want people to find alternative points of view then we need to make sure there is info on sites that people use to research issues, sites that they assume are impartial and authoritative.

I am NOT saying it is easy to just jump in and start editing Wikipedia or contributing to discussions on "Talk" Pages discussing content.

I would really like to encourage people to give it a go though!

5pm isn’t too early Girl - especially in these trying times

But eventually, they may persuade the dictionaries bofs that TWAW is common belief now, and thus the definition of woman should be changed

Unfortunately, given that the second definition of 'literally' in even reputable dictionaries is 'not literally' (eg 'used for emphasis while not being literally true.'), I fear that could happen.

Well, my fault 2B, wish you'd been here earlier

It's 5pm here, so is it still too early for the

Good detective work Girl ... they are a TRA stronghold these days sadly .. I usually google a literal dictionary now

Wiki is hopelessly corrupt and has lost all credibility. Didn’t people see those internal leaks, discussing how they could gradually erase all “terfs” without anyone noticing?

Avoid. Do not click on Wiki.

Ha! Well more fool me, my fault I now look like this

Thought I'd found an gotcha in their thinking (and maybe I have but I can't tell anymore!) in that a transwomen cannot, by wiki, definition be lesbian.

So..... I started here

Transwomen
Trans women may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, or identify with other terms (such as queer).

• ah ha! So not a lesbian then, cool. But I'll just check homosexual (attracted to someone of the same sex, not gender)

Homosexual
The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbiann for females and gayy for males

• ah ha! Still not lesbian because female, so still sex not gender, cool. But I'll just check lesbian because I'm an idiot

Lesbian
A lesbian is a homosexual woman. The word lesbian is also used for women in relation to their sexual identity or sexual behavior, regardless of sexual orientation, or as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction.

• ah ha! Still transwomen can still not claim to be lesbian.... oh wait, that's true only until you hit on "sexual identity" and we're back to the feelz

Sexual identity is how one thinks of oneself in terms of to whom one is romantically or sexually attracted.[1] Sexual identity may also refer to sexual orientation identity, which is when people identify or dis-identify with a sexual orientation or choose not to identify with a sexual orientation.[2] Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished,[1] with identityy* referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and sexual orientation referring to romantic or sexual attractions toward persons of the opposite sexx* or genderr*, the same sex or gender, to both sexes or more than one gender, or to no one.

Sorry, probably a de-rail but I was just curious and maybe hopeful.

Let's just call all these people out for what they are: that they are liars!

Every single one of us knows that men can never be women and that women can never be men.

No more pussyfooting around .. no more obfuscation!

#TimesUpForTheLiars

Just been to ‘Natacha’s’ twitter page. Another person who bases their idea of womanhood on Bernard Bresslaw wearing a dress in the Carry On ... movies.

Damn my curious nature!

Went off for a look and all I can say is it’s probably a good thing that that chaise longue appears to upholstered in a wipe-clean material.

for old time's sake I went and had a look at kennedy's myspace () profile pic

I remember some one posting it on here a couple of years ago and thinking I wonder how many female senior academics publicise pictures like that of themselves?

it was one of the firt things that made really start going

Bernard - snap

ah, many x-posts!

that would be the fragrant Natacha Kennedy I believe, who moonlights as Mark Kennedy and writes academic papers with themselves

the only time the ridiculous use of plural pronouns for a single person seems justified

Natasha Kennedy?

And is that the same one who "co-writes" papers with their old "male" name??

Was it that Kennedy person from Goldsmiths?

I read something last year on twitter - TRAs were plotting to remove radical feminist's pages, and add transwomen.

Yes, that secret facebook group. They discussed - and had started - changing the page about feminist icons, substituting TW and libfems for any of the old-school feminist activists.

I can't remember the name of the academic involved, they were making life hell for adult human female academics in the same university.

Ooh. We had a thread on this before. I needed wine to get through the wiki talk pages.

I no longer donate to Wikipedia based on that experience.

.

Just got to the trans bit - they wanted to remove the word "female"

We must be thankful for small mercies - female is still in there for now.

But eventually, they may persuade the dictionaries bofs that TWAW is common belief now, and thus the definition of woman should be changed

This

The whole first bit is about the image, the discussion of trans women is shortly after that.

They are difficult to read, they are a bit like reading a thread of a discussion and there is a fair bit of discussion of the rules around entries and stuff. I didn't wade through it all as I am on my way out, so I didn't see what led up to freezing the entry.

But generally, wiki is always going to be reflective, content changes when peoples ideas change.

I've just had a look at the talk for the Woman entry, there is quite a lengthy discussion on the inclusion of trans women.

I can't make head nor tail of the discussion page - I'm not that knowledgeable on Wikipedia editing.

Seems to be arguing about the photo being changed.

The discernment of an infant's sex was, until recently, almost universally considered an observation or recognition of an inherent aspect of a baby.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment

Well, um, .....yeah.