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
Caveat:
"The Decline of Wikipedia" (2013)
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
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
- Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
- Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
- Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility
- 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!