Wikipedia alterations ( regarding 'Transgender Trend')

You cannot randomly edit anymore, you have to give sources. Articles without sources are flagged-up.

It's accurate on Medieval and early modern history, which is mostly what I look up. You have to know what you are looking at i.e. no good looking up things you know nothing about - get a book on it instead. I think uni students are told not to use wikipedia. I like it - despite its being TWAWish (nearly wrote something similar) because it's free and for what I do it's fine - also gives lots of references on history articles (v. useful, making it a version of the 'Zulu project').

I told my teenager that Wikipedia was only good for quickly looking up an actor or working out plots of tv series. Where if the info was wrong it didnt really matter. Anything else was likely to be inaccurate and factually unchecked. I cannot believe that university students would need to be told it wasnt an acceptable resource.

Even the guy who invented it says it is now a complete pile of shite.

I was around when Wikipedia was being set up and as far as I remember anyone could add a page on anything at all. I remember being surprised that I could add anything at all that I liked to it.

It is literally the scribblings of randoms on the internet.

😂

Who writes the original entry
Basically anyone who has the time and inclination to do it.

You're forgetting another not so minor element:

anyone who is paid to do it can edit Wikipedia and together with other paid editor can form a clique railroading their "reality".

Wikipedia is slowly degenerating into a total farce for anything that isn't maths, physics, astronomy or similar sciences.

Wiki is a mess. And an example of how propaganda works

Wiki is completely taken by the mtf crowd, has been for quite a while. While I'm not surprised an American's been the one to edit the page, I'm one myself and know how bad it is here, they're from all over the world. The talk pages for many of these articles are infuriating, it's a concerted effort to dismantle any critical thought, and they're open about that fact.

It's been a hostile place for women since the beginning. Just let them keep embezzling donations and talking about trains and which graphic sex act to illustrate next.

• backed up by!

Good grief, what's wrong with me today?

D'oh - that should be "is backed up multiple citations", not sure how "my" got inserted!

@NotHavingIt Who writes the original entry

Basically anyone who has the time and inclination to do it. I could go on there right now and write an entry for myself, or a particular crater on the moon, or the rap battle my kids had last week.

They'd likely get removed by someone else at some point for not being notable enough, but then I could go an reinstate them if I cared that much.

Then one of my kids could decide that I got the results of the rap battle wrong so go and edit my article and so on it goes.

Most articles are fairly peaceful places and don't get edited often, but anything controversial turns into a war ground and can be changed by different people 100s of times a day. The winners tend to be whoevers the most bloody minded. Oddly enough they also tend to be the most captured people too

Wikipedia is very good on a range of subjects - the mathematical, science, and medical articles are generally great. The problem with transgender issues, and the Transgender Trend article is a good example of this, is that too many so-called "reliable sources" have been very captured and their coverage is partisan. So the claim that TT is "anti-trans" is backed up my multiple citations from the likes of CNN etc. who have ignorantly used that label. Unless and until other reliable sources publish articles challenging that description Wikipedia is stuck with it - Wikipedia articles are only as good and balanced as the sources of the citations that they are based on.

Yes, unfortunately, the only thing we can do is ceaselessly point out how unreliable Wikipedia is as a source. It's good on sport, though.

You can comment on the article's Talk page - it will be somewhere at the top of the page but where exactly seems to depend on whether you are using a desktop or mobile device etc. But Wikipedia discussions rapidly get bogged down in obtuse references to Wiki policies and aren't very welcoming to those who aren't versed in them. No wonder that new editors feel discouraged....!

It's the same issue for Genspect and Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine. Attempts to restore any kind of impartiality are countered within minutes by trans activists who seem to take it as their life's mission to police these entries and impose their own bias. You can imagine what sad lives they lead.

Hi Elons,

We're still waiting for your huge science reveal on another thread.

You can revert articles in Wikipedia after vandalism and you can also request for them to be locked if they become the subject of repeated vandalism or edit-warring.

Graham Linehan's wiki page basically libels him as transphobe too. I'm not sure much can be done about it.

Having said that : I've sent them a few bob in the past to keep the site free of sponsorship. Now I get pop ups asking for a contribution - which I ignore.

it's a hate group being accurately described.

Totally agree.