Wikipedia compiled by pro trans

[Karatequeen]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull

bit surprised to read nothing much about the crux of Kelly jays talks - women’s safe spaces. Disappointed that wikipedia has an agenda and isn't factually neutral.

Isn't the point of Wikipedia that anyone can edit it?

Wikipedia doesn't have an agenda. However, the people who edit the pages frequently have an agenda.

Anyone can edit a Wikipedia page. If you don't agree with the contents of a page, you are free to edit it yourself.

It's more complex than "anyone can edit a wiki page". Some pages are locked to various degrees, either because they have been vandalised often or because they are contentious and so are edited backwards and forwards by differing groups. Once it's under some kind of moderated control then what is allowed through depends on who has the privileges to manage that page. They are nearly all volunteers, nearly all male and they will have their own agendas.

If it's a page about trans issues GC views tend to get taken down. I support Wikipedia because it's really useful for finding references - I do historical research - but it must be used with care, diligence and good prior knowledge of the subject.

Go look at the edits. I saw in one morning there had been pages and pages. Anyone who updated it to mention women's rights had had it reverted back in seconds. It really is not neutral! Anything but.

I agree. The stats for who edits Wikipedia are grim. Bear in mind that the stats on this page are for GENDER not sex, so the disparity is even worse than it appears at first glance:

In a 2018 survey covering 12 language versions of Wikipedia and some other Wikimedia Foundation projects, 90% of 3,734 respondents reported their gender as male, 8.8% as female, and 1% as other; among contributors to the English Wikipedia, 84.7% identified as male, 13.6% as female, and 1.7% as other (total of 88 respondents).[5]

In 2019, Katherine Maher, then CEO of Wikimedia Foundation, said her team's working assumption was that women make up 15–20% of total contributors.[6]

Wikipedia's articles about women are less likely to be included, expanded, and detailed.[7][8]

A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women.[9]

The visibility and reachability of women on Wikipedia is limited, with a 2015 report finding that female pages generally "tend to be more linked to men".[10]

Language that is considered sexist, loaded, or otherwise gendered has been identified in articles about women.[4]

Gender bias features among the most frequent criticisms of Wikipedia, sometimes as part of a more general criticism about systemic bias in Wikipedia.

Just some of the depressing stats and info at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

As well as the "Edit" Page it is also very revealing to look at the "Talk" pages alongside articles, eg.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull

Wikipedia is totally TRA.

I tried editing the Drag Queen Story Hour article once to make it more balanced.
My edits were refused and I was emailed with a warning.

It is interesting which "Sources" Wikipedia regards as "Reliable" and those which will be automatically rejected because "Deprecated".

Pink News is the fount of all wisdom and totes reliable. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail is all fairy tales and was the first publication to be "Deprecated":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources

It’s not neutral at all - and I think Posie’s page is actually locked so it can’t be edited to try and balance it. But on any subject that can be politicised it’s not neutral. It reflects a particular world view.

Yes @Bosky ’s point on their ranking of sources is well observed. Wikipedia is rarely a neutral source of information on anything that can be remotely politicised - it is activist in nature. It’s a shame and I regret the donations I made in the past.

I no longer donate. Pity really but it's a bit of a joke now.
Glinner , for example , has given up trying to correct all the lies on his wiki entry afaik. But I have, since hearing about their anti gc bias , begun to see other bloopers on wiki.

Sometimes just a bit silly but harmful at others.