Why does KJK let her Wikipedia page stand with such bias?

[Walkingtheplank]

DD asked me about the Let Women Speak events and specifically about Kellie-Jay Keen. I said that I'd happily take her to a LWS event but she said she couldn't possibly go because KJK is such a transphobe, neo-Nazi, Trump supporter, Pro-Lifer etc. I obviously countered that but then she started quoting from her Wiki page. I again said let's go to a LWS event so she can see for herself, or even possibly speak to her herself but she wasnt having it.

Anyway, I've just looked at KJKs Wiki page and its atrocious. Totally one-sided. Is it not possible to get lies about you removed, or balance added (not au fait with Wiki editing), or is KJK not fussed?

And what is a good I.e. balanced source of a biography about her?

I thought it was fairly common knowledge that Wikipedia isn't a good source for information?
I remember being told in (I think?) Year 6 when I'd used Wikipedia, not to. That it could easily be changed or edited without any real "vetting".
How old is your DD? Is her school telling her Wikipedia is to be trusted fully? Why no looking at other sources? Or interest in doing so?

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, it's the whole point of it. No schools/universities will allow Wiki pages to be cited as a source.

As others have said, Wikipedia is edited by anyone and by self appointed moderators. Her page is controversial and I am quite sure it is monitored by those who hate KJK who will reverse and edit any moderating content.

I doubt KJK gives a shit. It would be a waste of her time to constantly fight to remove the outrageous content. Your DD needs a quick lesson in the reliability of sources and on how to make her own mind up rather than rely on other people's opinions.

One of the problems is that many so-called "reliable sources" that Wikipedia editors rely on are not at all reliable when it comes to KJK and gender identity ideology.

I did say that she should always consider the source/context and that Wikipedia is not an actual encyclopedia. She is absolutely old enough to be aware of this. I was just shocked at how biased that pag is. And editing-wise, it looks like I would have to provide a source to prove something is not true/did not happen. And it's quite tricky to provide sources for something that did not happen. It's like someone accusing me of saying the moon is pink with purple spots. I cant disprove it with a source so if it was on wikipedia about me, I couldn't have it taken down.

They do not mess with JK Rowling

They know she has the money to sue

Aah I see you are new to all this.

They write stuff then cite each other which then gets called 'peer reviewed' and ends up being cited as established fact. See The Grievance Studies affair...go tell your daughter to have a look at what point they were trying to prove.

Just because someone said it doesn't mean it is true.

KJK’s Wikipedia page has been locked for editing. If you look in the top right corner you’ll see the edit button that looks like a pencil and it has a padlock over it to indicate only established, registered users can edit it. If you look on the talk page you can see edits are regularly reversed.

Wikipedia, like Reddit, is captured by trans activists. Here’s a good article by Debbie Hayton about it: https://unherd.com/thepost/on-wikipedia-trans-activists-are-always-editing/

Show your daughter the actual SFW webpage. Wikipedia is captured.

Why would you bother trying to correct it? The socially inept basement dwellers that edit it would be overcome with excitement if she did that.

Yuk.

Can you imagine if KJK spent her days in a circular Wikipedia battle with genderist keyboard warriors instead of doing the work she does?

There are only so many hours in the day!

Just to confirm what @GlorianaCervixia said - KJK's page is locked.

@Walkingtheplank " she said she couldn't possibly go because KJK is such a transphobe, neo-Nazi, Trump supporter, Pro-Lifer "

What exactly does she think she is supporting? Does she have any inkling of the full extent of what is being demanded by tra's? Does she understand precisely what an abortion entails - what happens to the baby during the process?

She wouldn't be allowed to edit her own page, even if she wanted to. (People do, of course - embarrassingly for him, Grant Shapps was caught doing that more than once, IIRC.)

Here's an explanation of what AlisonDonut posted above:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting

On Wikipedia, ironically enough.

In particular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting#Circular_reporting_on_Wikipedia

Also in an old XKCD cartoon:

https://xkcd.com/978/

But also very important to the process is the near-complete blackout on many topics from major news sources. Wikipedia is notionally an encyclopedia, so is intended to be a tertiary source - no original research, but gathering news reports. If news outlets don't report accurately, Wikipedia won't.

And since 2017, Wikipedia has just effectively banned some sources altogether, such as the Daily Mail. It doesn't matter if it reports something accurately, because it has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".

Whereas a Guardian report on, say, Wi Spa or Cologne would be accepted without reservation.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, was doing the rounds last year on why Wikipedia should no longer be trusted, and how problematic its model has become. He goes into it in detail here:

I've donated to Wikipedia in the past. After reading this I shan't again.

Wikipedia is often a good place to start but always a bad place to stop.

Just to confirm what @GlorianaCervixiasaid - KJK's page is locked.

Note that the protection isn't particularly severe in theory - as the link from there says:

Semi-protected pages like this page cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia).

A totally unlocked page - most of them - can be edited without even an account. Just hit edit. That's laxer than Mumsnet.

So you could sign up, practice with some edits to less-controversial things, and then have a go with KJK's article.

The problem is that there is a huge userbase of male TRAs who will obsessively monitor topics and will get an alert about anyone they don't know editing the page and come up with some excuse to revert it back. They have far more experience with gaming the rules so they can try to ensure any dispute falls in their favour.

Wikipedia is a disgrace. Graham Linehan has given up trying to correct his page. I used to send them the odd tenner because I'd like to keep it free. But no more. They can sod off.

As a very perceptive Mumsnetter said , the tragedy of our times is that now lies are free and the truth is behind a pay wall.

https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/

The woman in this interview is an ex Wikipedia moderator and she talks frankly about all the propagandising and rewriting of history they get up to.

Imagine their lives. Poor bastards.

Wherever you get obsessed online people, Wikipedia becomes impossible.

I am friends with an author who has obsessive teenage fans. There was something very unlikely written on her Wikipedia page, so I asked her if it was true. She said it wasn’t so I went searching sources and it was obvious she had given an interview that had been misquoted and then requoted more often than the original interview.

I went back to the original source material, edited the Wikipedia page, put in a link to the source interview and felt pleased. I don’t know whether one of the teen fans had an alert when the page was edited but my edit only lasted a few minutes. I knew I was more accurate, but I didn’t care enough to get into competitive editing with obsessives.

And yes, transactivists are equally obsessed, if not more so. Indeed there may be an overlap of the two groups. So for science, I do still consult Wikipedia and also for information about people who are in no way contentious. But when it comes to contentious people or politics, Wikipedia is worse than useless.

When I want to learn about technical matters I know little about I will use Wikipedia as a place likely to provide me with information that's often accurate enough to equip me with the language to enable me to search more accurately in other sources.

But then as PriOn1 says, what I'm looking for isn't about contentious people or politics.