Is anyone here able to edit Wikipedia?

[AngeloMysterioso]

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?

Thanks

👍👍👍👍👍

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…

I think wiki pages which have been vandalised get locked down so that all and sundry can't edit them.

The suggested edit has been made by someone called justquicklyum 😁 . Don't know if it was someone on this board?

Anyone can edit Wikipedia iirc, unless it's an article about a living person, when you need to be established in some way. This was brought in due to constant vandalism.

But Frances Barber is a living person and I just did it 🤔😎 See how long it lasts...

It won't last @Aaaaaaaaaaaargh , it will have reverted within 24 hours. Lots of people have been targeted in this manner. I see even JK Rowling's page is very strained with references to transphobia. Graham Linehan's page is a disgrace. I saw Stella O'Malley had this on her piece about online bullies today: genspect.org/telling-the-truth-in-a-time-of-deceit-part-1-stella-omalleys-statement-on-conversion-therapy/

" There are literally hundreds of hours of content freely available about my views on gender which is why I didn’t think I would have to protect myself from the dishonest accusations that are outlined below. Sadly many people use Wikipedia as a way to educate themselves, even though Larry Sanger, the man who co-founded Wikipedia, has cautioned that this website cannot be relied upon to give people the truth. Wikipedia can be gamed and trans activists use Wikipedia as a way to attack Genspect and myself. We are not given the opportunity to argue the points as the moderators always side with trans activists, no matter how many quality references they are supplied with. Consequently, articles by gender extremists such as Lee Leveille, are favoured over the more conventional Sunday Times."

Unfortunately the blatant bias has made Wikipedia into a joke reference with zero credibility.

No-one takes a link to it seriously if it's in relation to anything with even the slightest controversy.

Links on here just get treated to an eye roll. They've allowed moderators to destroy their credibility.

Such a pity because Wikipedia was a brilliant idea.

Yep. It’s back to “transphobic comments”.

Isn’t that technically slander/libel? (IANAL)

Fixed...

Nice! 😁

Yes, it’s clearly defamatory, which is ironic as the original reason for locking down famous people’s Wikipedia entries was supposed to be to prevent libellous stuff being put in.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned does Frances Barber get to have an opinion on how her page is edited? She's on Twitter...

It would probably be wrong for people (or companies) to have editorial control of their own wiki pages, though if they submit factual corrections I'd hope they'd be taken seriously.

If the page flip flops again maybe a comment should be included to point out that 'transphobic' is a subjective and disputed description, and one which does not align with the more balanced content of the page linked to.

It could also be considered libellous to make an emotional judgement about someone's views - Wikipedia is meant to be objective not subjective, and the subject could very well have the wording altered on the basis of libel - however if they are not aware and it is simply down to the public editing it then it will be far trickier and wikipedia editing is very controlled by a certain demographic...

And back to transphobic again

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

Done...

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.

Says gender critical currently...

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

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.

Nice one Justdoingthis!

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