Wikipedia alterations ( regarding 'Transgender Trend')

[NotHavingIt]

I've just googled Transgender Trend and a wikipedia link popped up which has been edited to describe the organisation as an " anti-trans" group and other disparaging language. It looks like an edit by someone in the U.S as it refers to dollars and uses other American terminology. Is there anything that can be done about this?

I've been directing people to their site for information recently, and whilst their web page does come up at the top of the search terms, the wikipedia page is right beside it.

Is there a way to raise concerns over inaccuracies?

It seems like whoever did it lost momentum as most of the page is ok. The first paragraph is terrible.

But thhe hostile and cynical tone remains throughout.

For example:

In 2022, an 18-year-old trans man reported Dr Az Hakeem, a psychiatrist who describes himself as "gender-critical", to the General Medical Council for practicing conversion therapy against him when he was a patient at 17. He stated that when he came out, his mother began to research and fell into "very, very anti-trans circles,"

Wikipedia has a wider problem of sexist decisions, too.

Even things that are completely non controversial on Wikipedia can be a shit show of wiki trolls altering things. It is not a perfect system.

You can edit it yourself but articles like this frequently get locked. Wiki is generally fully captured.

In some topics which I have expertise in the information is blatantly one-sided and attempts to balance them are stopped.

Many universities don't allow Wikipedia to be used in student essays as sources for that reason.

It's very biased. More like an opinion piece.

Have a look at entry for transwoman if you want to see how laughably one-sided articles can be.

You have to know a good amount about a subject to use Wikipedia (actually, this is true of the internet generally, an awful lot of rubbish gets put up as though it were accurate and factual). Wikipedia is useful for finding historical sources, which are listed at the bottom of most history pages. The sites should never be suggested to novice researchers of anything - though the articles on English Medieval history are mostly accurate. You have to watch out for anything from the US because Americans have no understanding of history outside their own country at all.

Thanks!

I wasn't fully aware of how it works, though I have been aware that people can 'interfere' and for that reason it does seem like a bit of a free for all.

So who writes the 'original' entry?

So sick of american politics......and especially the politics of identity. Supposedly radical but to my mind just symbols of a culture in decline which is cannabalising itself.

Totally agree.

it's a hate group being accurately described.

Your 'posts' are a symbol of all that has gone wrong. No content worthy of the name.

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.

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.

Hi Elons,

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

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.

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....!

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.

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.

@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

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