Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Is anyone here able to edit Wikipedia?

66 replies

AngeloMysterioso · 16/08/2022 23:23

Don’t ask me how but I went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole and ended up on Frances Barber’s page, where I was irritated to see the below text:

“In 2018, she was among the signatories to a letter published in The Observer arguing that debate surrounding reforms of the Gender Recognition Act were being silenced.[15] In September 2020, she signed a further letter in support of J.K. Rowling, against the backlash Rowling had received following her transphobic comments.[16]”

The words “transphobic comments” are also a hyperlink to the page “Political views of J. K. Rowling”

I went to edit the page to change the word “transphobic” to “gender critical” but it turns out I’m blocked from editing, the reason given being vandalism. No idea what that’s about as I don’t think I’ve ever actually edited a Wikipedia page in my life… anyway, if there is anyone out there who does have that happy power, could they just pop in and fix it?

OP posts:
ajarintennessee · 18/08/2022 12:44

Shana4chan has clearly gotten more and more worked up.comments scale up from ‘Consensus view’ to ‘Neutrality not required regarding prejudice’ to ‘neutrality not required regarding hate speech’
maybe if you keep going they will just have an aneurism…
what happens to Wikipedia pages where it just goes back and forth- does any higher level of mod get switched on? I made a note I had to donate again yesterday, can’t say I feel like it right now!

Aaaaaaaaaaaargh · 18/08/2022 12:36

Damnit ShanaChan95 has just made me snigger 😡

FemaleAndLearning · 18/08/2022 11:19

Editing not exciting!

FemaleAndLearning · 18/08/2022 11:11

Thank you for highlighting the exciting process to me. This backwards and forwards clearly shows that some people are incapable of using objective language. Insenstive is not neutral just like transphobic isn't.

Aaaaaaaaaaaargh · 18/08/2022 10:01

Same here, I won't be sending them any more money if it's just a TRA mouthpiece. And it shows what a stupid little game it is for them, no room for discourse at all.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 18/08/2022 09:36

God there are some nut jobs out there aren’t there?

yet again I’m inclined to recommend that the person obsessively slandering JKR get a more constructive hobby

Abhannmor · 18/08/2022 09:18

I used to send Wiki the odd tenner as I thought it was important to keep it free and independent of corporate sponsors.

No more. Graham Lenihan's entry is totally libellous. It describes him as an 'anti transgender activist'. You have to wonder if anything else on Wikipedia can be relied on. I don't want to subsidise liars.

Ps The Guardian can jog on as well

Original poster
AngeloMysterioso · 18/08/2022 08:30

The last change lasted 20 minutes… it’s the same person changing it back each time now so they’re obviously keeping an eye on it, and us… <waves to ShanaChan95>

OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 18/08/2022 08:05

The comment in the history on the latest edit back to slander is 'corrected inaccuracy'. Hmm

Original poster
AngeloMysterioso · 18/08/2022 07:46

CanadianJohn · 18/08/2022 02:33

I'm a history nut (mostly 16th century England) and I have edited Wiki a lot. Let's see if my edit holds. If not, I might contact them.

aaaaaaaand back.

OP posts:
CanadianJohn · 18/08/2022 02:33

I'm a history nut (mostly 16th century England) and I have edited Wiki a lot. Let's see if my edit holds. If not, I might contact them.

Original poster
AngeloMysterioso · 18/08/2022 02:21

AngeloMysterioso · 18/08/2022 02:19

It’s now been changed to “publicising her transphobic views”.

This is getting silly.

The narrative attached to the edit says “Edited to reflect offensive nature of Rowling's comments”

OP posts:
Original poster
AngeloMysterioso · 18/08/2022 02:19

It’s now been changed to “publicising her transphobic views”.

This is getting silly.

OP posts:
Aaaaaaaaaaaargh · 17/08/2022 22:34

🤞

ErrolTheDragon · 17/08/2022 22:29

Good wording, and like the comment that shows in the history 'removed potential bias'.

dontknowwhattpputhere · 17/08/2022 21:47

dontknowwhattpputhere · 17/08/2022 21:46

I have tried changing it to "...after publicising her views on transgender issues." Let’s see if it sticks!

It was back to "transphobic comments" before my edit.

dontknowwhattpputhere · 17/08/2022 21:46

I have tried changing it to "...after publicising her views on transgender issues." Let’s see if it sticks!

Aaaaaaaaaaaargh · 17/08/2022 20:31

Nice one Justdoingthis!

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 17/08/2022 20:12

I've seen Wikipedia articles about living people which were so adulatory of the subject I've assumed they've been written by the subject or their PR people. I love Wikipedia but they really need to get on top of this problem or their credibility will be shot.

ErrolTheDragon · 17/08/2022 19:45

It looks to me like it's gone from controversial to transphobic to gender critical again.

Basilthymerosemary · 17/08/2022 19:45

Says gender critical currently...

Is anyone here able to edit Wikipedia?
TheBiologyStupid · 17/08/2022 19:34

AngeloMysterioso · 17/08/2022 18:14

And back to transphobic again Angry

Show quote history

The current version now says "controversial", which might stick. A discussion on the article's Talk Page is probably in order - I'll try to start one tomorrow if necessary.

Aaaaaaaaaaaargh · 17/08/2022 18:52

Done...

ErrolTheDragon · 17/08/2022 18:45

Maybe if someone has another shot, just change it to 'controversial'? That's accurate whichever was you see things, I'd have thought.

Original poster
AngeloMysterioso · 17/08/2022 18:14

Thenightwemet16 · 17/08/2022 12:14

Fixed...

And back to transphobic again Angry

OP posts: