Why does KJK let her Wikipedia page stand with such bias?

What a lotta bollocks. When someone prefaces the subject's name with the word ' controversial ' you know you are in the Sun territory.

Does "deep dive" mean invent nonsense, and does "respected" mean "liked by anti women activists"?

It's perfectly possible for a person to hold some views you agree with and some that you don't

I’d get your daughter to watch a Let Women Speak event on YouTube. They’re recorded and loaded up there. She could even watch what happened in Auckland.

Agree. If I want info on Eleanor of Acquitaine or Maria Comnena I will start there - will give some book references etc. If I want to know about the Periodic Table, ditto. But if I want to know about something I am completely ignorant about I go to the library and look at relevant textbooks/books on that topic which are well-provenanced. I may end by disagreeing with them, but my disagreement will be based on evidence I have studied and not on anything I 'just' find on the internet without any outside corroboration.

It's impossible to change anti-GC stuff on Wikipedia, it gets changed back, which suggests they are captured. I do use Wikipedia for things I already know about e.g. I'll look up George, Duke of Clarence (Edward IV's brother) because I already know a lot about him and I am just checking something and I can find references at the end of the article which I can follow up e.g. books. I remember telling my step-grand-daughter (then 11) that she must not trust the internet (not specifically Wikipedia) and she got very upset as her school encouraged use of the internet for homework etc. I think schools are a bit more careful now, and teach methods to check how reliable information is, i.e. look for anachronisms etc (a bit hard if you don't know what one is or why it is anachronistic, so not that useful - some explicit teaching of knowledge would be a lot better than getting children to look up unknown stuff for themselves).

You could show your daughter some of KJK 's own videos, especially Terf Talk Tuesdays, where she answers people's calls. Seeing her interact with concerned pp gives you a really good sense of her values, her empathy, compassion coupled with a no nonsense approach.

Also isn't it interesting how history is notoriously a study of the lives of men, and usually privileged ones at that. And just as society begins to become conscious of this and begins to question it, note that through the explosion of tech, privileged men have found a more covert way of making sure they retain control of the narrative.

I see scenarios such as you have described as gifts, teachable moments. Much easier than trying to raise the subject of children and women's rights out of the blue.

There are so many avenues you can take this down. The issues with Wikipedia as already mentioned. But actually, as your daughter has raised "neo nazi" and will undoubtedly have studied Nazism in school, here's an opportunity to talk about the dangers of political extremes on both right and left (Nazi obviously standing for National Socialism and using some socialist policies to gain early popularity). If you're up to it, you can then cover Nazi practice of eugenics and consider which political movement currently advocates medicine and surgery that sterilises gay and autistic children and young people.

I'm shocked to read a few people have given money to wiki!!!
Literally anyone can edit most pages on there! Only really use it for reading the plot of a horror movie before I watch it (weird I know but I have to know when to hide)

When I want to learn about technical matters I know little about I will use Wikipedia as a place likely to provide me with information that's often accurate enough to equip me with the language to enable me to search more accurately in other sources.

But then as PriOn1 says, what I'm looking for isn't about contentious people or politics.

Wherever you get obsessed online people, Wikipedia becomes impossible.

I am friends with an author who has obsessive teenage fans. There was something very unlikely written on her Wikipedia page, so I asked her if it was true. She said it wasn’t so I went searching sources and it was obvious she had given an interview that had been misquoted and then requoted more often than the original interview.

I went back to the original source material, edited the Wikipedia page, put in a link to the source interview and felt pleased. I don’t know whether one of the teen fans had an alert when the page was edited but my edit only lasted a few minutes. I knew I was more accurate, but I didn’t care enough to get into competitive editing with obsessives.

And yes, transactivists are equally obsessed, if not more so. Indeed there may be an overlap of the two groups. So for science, I do still consult Wikipedia and also for information about people who are in no way contentious. But when it comes to contentious people or politics, Wikipedia is worse than useless.

Imagine their lives. Poor bastards.

The woman in this interview is an ex Wikipedia moderator and she talks frankly about all the propagandising and rewriting of history they get up to.

https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/

Wikipedia is a disgrace. Graham Linehan has given up trying to correct his page. I used to send them the odd tenner because I'd like to keep it free. But no more. They can sod off.

As a very perceptive Mumsnetter said , the tragedy of our times is that now lies are free and the truth is behind a pay wall.

Just to confirm what @GlorianaCervixiasaid - KJK's page is locked.

Note that the protection isn't particularly severe in theory - as the link from there says:

Semi-protected pages like this page cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia).

A totally unlocked page - most of them - can be edited without even an account. Just hit edit. That's laxer than Mumsnet.

So you could sign up, practice with some edits to less-controversial things, and then have a go with KJK's article.

The problem is that there is a huge userbase of male TRAs who will obsessively monitor topics and will get an alert about anyone they don't know editing the page and come up with some excuse to revert it back. They have far more experience with gaming the rules so they can try to ensure any dispute falls in their favour.

Wikipedia is often a good place to start but always a bad place to stop.

I've donated to Wikipedia in the past. After reading this I shan't again.

Also in an old XKCD cartoon:

https://xkcd.com/978/

But also very important to the process is the near-complete blackout on many topics from major news sources. Wikipedia is notionally an encyclopedia, so is intended to be a tertiary source - no original research, but gathering news reports. If news outlets don't report accurately, Wikipedia won't.

And since 2017, Wikipedia has just effectively banned some sources altogether, such as the Daily Mail. It doesn't matter if it reports something accurately, because it has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".

Whereas a Guardian report on, say, Wi Spa or Cologne would be accepted without reservation.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, was doing the rounds last year on why Wikipedia should no longer be trusted, and how problematic its model has become. He goes into it in detail here:

In particular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting#Circular_reporting_on_Wikipedia

Here's an explanation of what AlisonDonut posted above:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting

On Wikipedia, ironically enough.

She wouldn't be allowed to edit her own page, even if she wanted to. (People do, of course - embarrassingly for him, Grant Shapps was caught doing that more than once, IIRC.)

Just to confirm what @GlorianaCervixia said - KJK's page is locked.

@Walkingtheplank " she said she couldn't possibly go because KJK is such a transphobe, neo-Nazi, Trump supporter, Pro-Lifer "

What exactly does she think she is supporting? Does she have any inkling of the full extent of what is being demanded by tra's? Does she understand precisely what an abortion entails - what happens to the baby during the process?