Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Wikipedia alterations ( regarding 'Transgender Trend')

36 replies

NotHavingIt · 10/03/2023 15:06

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.

OP posts:
TheBiologyStupid · 11/03/2023 13:08
  • backed up by!

Good grief, what's wrong with me today?

Redbird87 · 11/03/2023 13:16

Wiki is completely taken by the mtf crowd, has been for quite a while. While I'm not surprised an American's been the one to edit the page, I'm one myself and know how bad it is here, they're from all over the world. The talk pages for many of these articles are infuriating, it's a concerted effort to dismantle any critical thought, and they're open about that fact.

It's been a hostile place for women since the beginning. Just let them keep embezzling donations and talking about trains and which graphic sex act to illustrate next.

Resister · 12/03/2023 00:27

Wiki is a mess. And an example of how propaganda works

DaSilvaP · 12/03/2023 04:07

fdgdfgdfgdfg · 11/03/2023 12:33

@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

Who writes the original entry
Basically anyone who has the time and inclination to do it.

You're forgetting another not so minor element:

anyone who is paid to do it can edit Wikipedia and together with other paid editor can form a clique railroading their "reality".

Wikipedia is slowly degenerating into a total farce for anything that isn't maths, physics, astronomy or similar sciences.

ElonsMusky · 13/03/2023 19:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ArabellaScott · 13/03/2023 19:59

ElonsMusky · 10/03/2023 20:09

it's a hate group being accurately described.

😂

Xant · 13/03/2023 20:49

NotHavingIt · 10/03/2023 20:02

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?

Show quote history

I was around when Wikipedia was being set up and as far as I remember anyone could add a page on anything at all. I remember being surprised that I could add anything at all that I liked to it.

It is literally the scribblings of randoms on the internet.

AlisonDonut · 13/03/2023 20:51

Even the guy who invented it says it is now a complete pile of shite.

thelionthewitchtheaudacityofTHISbitch · 13/03/2023 21:14

BellaAmorosa · 11/03/2023 04:12

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.

Show quote history

I told my teenager that Wikipedia was only good for quickly looking up an actor or working out plots of tv series. Where if the info was wrong it didnt really matter. Anything else was likely to be inaccurate and factually unchecked. I cannot believe that university students would need to be told it wasnt an acceptable resource.

Grammarnut · 14/03/2023 00:01

thelionthewitchtheaudacityofTHISbitch · 13/03/2023 21:14

I told my teenager that Wikipedia was only good for quickly looking up an actor or working out plots of tv series. Where if the info was wrong it didnt really matter. Anything else was likely to be inaccurate and factually unchecked. I cannot believe that university students would need to be told it wasnt an acceptable resource.

Show quote history

It's accurate on Medieval and early modern history, which is mostly what I look up. You have to know what you are looking at i.e. no good looking up things you know nothing about - get a book on it instead. I think uni students are told not to use wikipedia. I like it - despite its being TWAWish (nearly wrote something similar) because it's free and for what I do it's fine - also gives lots of references on history articles (v. useful, making it a version of the 'Zulu project').

Grammarnut · 14/03/2023 00:03

Xant · 13/03/2023 20:49

I was around when Wikipedia was being set up and as far as I remember anyone could add a page on anything at all. I remember being surprised that I could add anything at all that I liked to it.

It is literally the scribblings of randoms on the internet.

Show quote history

You cannot randomly edit anymore, you have to give sources. Articles without sources are flagged-up.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread