Wikipedia is now redacting information anytime anyone writes out the birth names of any transgender people, even in the so-called “discussion pages” to discuss article content… but no, this ISN’T a nu-religious movement...

submitted by loubag1997 from i.imgur.com

all 38 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Wikipedia has been a biased, inaccurate source of information for a long time. There are mods who gaurd the pages of their pet subjects against intruders - even if it's a credentialed expert trying to correct misinformation. It's ridiculous.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Wikipedia has always been biased, the very nature of the platform gives it a bias towards popular opinion over factual evidence, or at least so far as popular opinion amongst those that edit Wikipedia.

And just as always Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source and shouldn't be cited. I'll give no credit for Wikipedia sources, it is an excellent index of sources however if you're using it to find other sources.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

When I went to college, my lecturers did not count Wikipedia articles as sources. A large portion of your marks for an essay went towards references and you got no marks for referencing Wikipedia articles. Which they are right to do. I did look at the sources those articles used

[–]Smarterthanlastweek2 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I did look at the sources those articles used

Right, but now sources that editors don't want known won't be included.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. Fuck Wikipedia.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wikipedia has always been biased, the very nature of the platform gives it a bias towards popular opinion over factual evidence,

That might have been a reason for bias when it started but it's not the reason for bias today.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Paper encyclopedias are going to have a moment again.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You just have to have something which is a little bit harder to edit and gives more authority than Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong I like the Wikipedia model, anyone can edit it and all the edits are a matter of record. It's an excellent resource to start with, it just cannot be trusted to be accurate and you should always dig a bit deeper for anything where it matters. Wikipedia either ends up as a Mexican standoff between editors and you get something somewhat resembling an objective article or it's some niche thing nobody cares about and one or s few editors with time on their hands can fully control the article for good or for evil. I'm almost certain corporate interests are also active on their own Wikipedia pages for example. I've noticed a lot of stuff that reads like it was written by marketing departments.

The web isn't as organic or grassroots as it might appear.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This affects culture war stuff but it's also a big problem with state actors manipulating articles related to antiwar journalists.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Lol, someone is trying to run their own little Minitrue over at Wikipedia.

[–]LyingSpirit472 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On the positive side, the example said "they'll mention the name of a trans person who was a relevant figure before transitioning", which is reasonable and fixes the "Caitlyn Jenner was the greatest athlete in the world when she won the gold medal in the decathlon in 1976" or "Elliot Page came to fame when he played a teenager who got pregnant in Juno" issues of 'these facts change dramatically unless you know the person in question is transgender and transitioned after doing this'. So, that's at least reasonable enough.

[–]GrilledTofuIdentifying as a block of tofu 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Imagine being unable to get birth certificates because deadname-ideology demands deletion at all levels. You'd have a person suddenly coming to existence with nothing tracable at 18 years old.

[–]Datachost 26 insightful - 5 fun26 insightful - 4 fun27 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

That's the idea. A paedophile in Wisconsin just tried arguing in front of court that having to go on the sex offender's register would be a violation of his human rights, because ot would be deadnaming him. It got shot down in a 3-4 decision. Three Wisconsin Supreme Court justices fucking agreed with him

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

As if it was bad enough for tranny sex offenders to be housed in women's prison.

[–]GrilledTofuIdentifying as a block of tofu 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Just when I thought reality couldn't be more like a Babylon Bee article, they proved me wrong....

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Three court justices. Western civilisation is in deep trouble.

[–]Smarterthanlastweek2 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How the fuck did it get to this point? Was everyone not paying fucking attention or something?

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most people don't pay attention.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Just put both names on the Sex-Offender register then. How is this controversial?

[–]jet199 11 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

A great way to get away with crimes

[–]xoenix 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I now identify as a law-abiding citizen.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The more these institutions discredit themselves, the better.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

These rules are a predators wet dream

[–]AkbarZip 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Wikipedia editor here. I've noticed how they've bowed to gender ideology. Nothing you can really do about it.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cross that source off the list, twice. Time to build an alternative internet: based net.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I guess you could use Info Galactic as an alternative, even though I'm not so sure what their record is.

[–]AkbarZip 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No other online source of info comes close. Wikipedia will change when the tide of public opinion turns against gender ideology. In the meantime all that can be done is make it somewhat less biased.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Keep dreaming. I don't expext Wikipedia to change. Wikipedia has been pushing the transgender ideology since 2009 at the earliest. And even if Wikipedia is swayed by public opinion, it is based in San Francisco, one of the most neoliberal cities on earth. So it won't be changing for a long time at least.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Even one of the co-founders of Wikipedia said that Wikipedia is shite on account of how biased and cucked the site is.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

When did the names that the parents gave these psychos suddenly become state secrets?

[–]connor_hc 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

WE NEED A SUBREDDIT THAT CATALOGUES ALL THE DEAD NAMES!

[–]loubag1997[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

On Saidit yes, on Reddit it would be banned before it even began.

[–]connor_hc 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

HAHA truee, more like a subsaiddit?

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The Problem with Wikipedia? Women, Apparently
There are not enough women

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

If only we didn't burden those poor women with access to the workforce and voting rights they would be free to spend their time editing Wikipedia.

[–]Smarterthanlastweek2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I used to think they had a noble cause and used to donate to them. Money fucking wasted.

[–]Enemycupcake 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wow I never thought of it that way. Thank you for learning me how to do better wikipedia.

[–]cephyrious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The page for Elliot Page still says "formerly Ellen"