A Wiki We Will Go

[Aspie]

I have some good news :D One of my friends has moderator or administrative privileges at Wikipedia and has agreed to take down the entire circumcision article because many of the citations are bad and the article is biassed towards circumcision, however he needs a new balanced article with citations before he can do anything. I was thinking that perhaps we could work on an article, get all the citation in order send it to my friend have the new article put in and have it locked so it can't be edited. What do you guys think?

[Joseph]

Hee-YESSS!!!!

That article is so hi-jacked by pro-circ advocates...

Thing is guys, because it's a WikiPedia article, if we were to write it, it does need to be "fair and balanced."

We will need to mention all the study crap, for all its lying and deception, but also balance them with scientific rebuttals (ie, OTHER studies...)

You think while we're at it, we can take down all the other articles that have been marred by circumcision advocates?

IE, someone has taken the liberty of taking the circumcision, HIV, Langerhans cells arguments to the foreskin article.

It's about time actual people with integrity wrote these articles.

[z726]

A long time ago I did some editing on the Wikipedia article on foreskin restoration, and I still look at it every now and then. Oddly enough, there's at least one circumcision fetishist who keeps editing the article as if he should have any personal interest in the subject. After arguing for a bit in the discussion area, I figured it wasn't worth it - I'd added enough content for anyone researching restoration to find relevant websites and news articles, and have even met a guy who first found out about restoration there.

For the article on circumcision, I think it would pretty much impossible to find unbiased authors - or at least you won't find them by posting about it here.

[Joseph]

I think it's quite possible for some people in here to write in an unbiased tone.

The only problem is, the evidence is against infant circumcision.

It is the people who try to pretend to be "fair and balanced" who are biased, because they're figuratively stacking books under circumcision to create the appearance of "balance."

We need someone who will present "just the facts" without trying to put airs on circumcision and present it like it's this "ambiguous decision" doctors seem to be absolutely clueless about (so the stupid parents who never set foot in med-school should make this 'decision?')

[Joseph]

Aspie, is what you say true?

We have exclusive access to a locked circ page on Wikipedia?

Cuz if so, then I'd like to propose now some of us come together to form some sort of WikiPedia Taskforce for this.

We need fact checkers, experts in studies and their wording, links to studies etc., and people who are just in the know about all of this.

If anyone is interested in coming together and seeing Aspie on this, send me a private message. We need to talk.

[Aspie]

Aspie, is what you say true?

We have exclusive access to a locked circ page on Wikipedia?

Cuz if so, then I'd like to propose now some of us come together to form some sort of WikiPedia Taskforce for this.

We need fact checkers, experts in studies and their wording, links to studies etc., and people who are just in the know about all of this.

If anyone is interested in coming together and seeing Aspie on this, send me a private message. We need to talk.

It is true however there is one thing my friend is in poor health and so even when we get this done it might take some time for him to get things done.

[Tally]

I have some good news :D One of my friends has moderator or administrative privileges at Wikipedia and has agreed to take down the entire circumcision article because many of the citations are bad and the article is biassed towards circumcision, however he needs a new balanced article with citations before he can do anything.
It is not just the circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) page that has been hijacked. The foreskin restoration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration) page has been hijacked, along with almost every other page having to do with circumcision.

Rather than just start over, what really needs to be done is to stop the pro-circers from reverting changes and adding their POV to the page. Even if a new page is put up, if the pro-circ hijackers are not dealt with, the new page will get messed up again. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not seem to have a mechanism for controlling or moderating editors. Maybe what your friend could do is put a notice on the page saying that the content is not NPOV (neutral point of view).

Wikipedia is a great resource for non-controversial subjects. But, it fails for controversial topics like circumcision.

[Aspie]

It is not just the circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) page that has been hijacked. The foreskin restoration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration) page has been hijacked, along with almost every other page having to do with circumcision.

Rather than just start over, what really needs to be done is to stop the pro-circers from reverting changes and adding their POV to the page. Even if a new page is put up, if the pro-circ hijackers are not dealt with, the new page will get messed up again. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not seem to have a mechanism for controlling or moderating editors. Maybe what your friend could do is put a notice on the page saying that the content is not NPOV (neutral point of view).

Wikipedia is a great resource for non-controversial subjects. But, it fails for controversial topics like circumcision.

My friend can lock the new circumcision page up along with any others that need to be locked up so that only moderators and administrators can touch it. Also the neutrality bit has been noted already we did that in December.

Now then as that is settled I have a few suggestions with this rewritten.

1.) We need to address the religious aspects of circumcision such as talking about how the Jewish circumcision is in conflict with certain laws and that it might not have originally been in the old text.
2.) We need to address how circumcision has been used as a punishment.
3.) We need to talk about the modern history of circumcision.
4.) We really need to use graphic pictures as reading something is fine but seeing something tells you so much more in regards to stuff like circumcision.
5.) We need to talk about children being circumcised against their will with no pain killers.

[Joseph]

Hey Aspie!

You in on this? I've already got one respondent. Plus me, it could be three.

Guys I REALLY want to help create a working article (or working articles) to give to Aspie's friend.

Aspie, I think what we gotta keep in mind is that we need to be concise.

For example, I think we should talk about the religious aspect of circumcision, but remember that there are already sites about religious circumcision. If, for example we say "infant circumcision is practiced as are religious rite in Judaism," I think we need only say as much and then wikilink to the already existing bris milah page, etc. I'm not sure it's a good idea to talk about what religious law says, as much as it's important to talk about what circumcision is and what it does. Remember, more than the fact that it is contradictory to what religious books say, it is important to make the case that it is contradictory to medicine.

Send me a private message, Aspie!

[Aspie]

Hey Aspie!

You in on this? I've already got one respondent. Plus me, it could be three.

Guys I REALLY want to help create a working article (or working articles) to give to Aspie's friend.

Aspie, I think what we gotta keep in mind is that we need to be concise.

For example, I think we should talk about the religious aspect of circumcision, but remember that there are already sites about religious circumcision. If, for example we say "infant circumcision is practiced as are religious rite in Judaism," I think we need only say as much and then wikilink to the already existing bris milah page, etc. I'm not sure it's a good idea to talk about what religious law says, as much as it's important to talk about what circumcision is and what it does. Remember, more than the fact that it is contradictory to what religious books say, it is important to make the case that it is contradictory to medicine.

Send me a private message, Aspie!

Perhaps we should work on the religious stuff at another time as while it is not as important as the medical stuff it is non the less very important.

[OracleYori]

Something as large as this would be a multi-step process.
Heck, just the prime article would be multiple sub-articles.

[Joseph]

I think we need to remain as factual and objective as possible, without going off on a tangent.

For example, it is one thing to say:

"Circumcision is important in Judaism, as it is said to be a covenant between the Jewish patriarch Abraham and the Judeo-Christian god. The story of Abraham appears in their holy scripture the Torah. Some scholars dispute that circumcision was ever part of the covenant between Abraham and the Judeo-Christian god, because circumcision as "a token betwixt you and me" does not appear in earlier versions of the Torah. (insert link here)"

And another to say:

"Circumcision is important to Jews, because it is said to be part of a covenant between the Jewish patriarch Abraham and the Judeo-Christian god. They are wrong, however, and they shouldn't be circumcising their children in the name of the Judeo-Christian god, because circumcision doesn't appear in earlier versions of the Torah. Circumcision was clearly inserted, grafted in to more modern versions of the Jewish text by sick and twisted rabbis."

Like I said, we need people who know their stuff and are willing to remain objective and not add a slant, pro-intact, or pro-circ.

[OracleYori]

Good point.

I wouldn't have thought to put a bias into it, but objectivity should be easy enough with a few people to review.

The language of the first is much nicer to read anyway.

[Kynodesme]

I can't stand reading Wiki articles, especially the circumcision one, but I'm glad you guys are redoing it completely.

[Joseph]

At least we're trying to...

Let's see if it even happens at all...

:(

Got a couple of willing guys... but already got a couple of discouraging responses... guess people could give a crap about wikipedia... or just writing something about circumcision in general... I guess I can't blame 'em...

Hey, whatever, to each their own.

Aspie, if what you say is true, I'LL try doing something and sending it to you later on.

If it turns out your friend can't really do what s/he says she can, I will at least have come up with some sort of database or somethin'...

The restoration article should be especially of interest to the people on here, as it should be the men on here who own that page, not some pro-circ asshole...

Just thinkin', we gotta try and hit this from every front possible. To a lot of people, despite the obvious fact that it can be written and edited, or rather, hi-jacked by anyone, take WikiPedia to be the end-all be-all of anything.

If we could finally get something neutral up there without a certain WikiPedia troll mucking it up all the time it's a start I think.

Whatever.

If anyone's interested, please let me know privately.

Thinks I'm pondering:

Whether or not to just keep the old page and edit all the biased/unnecessary crap out.

Nuke what's there and start anew...

[xx Royal xx]

Corrected the very first sencence, "Circumcision, also known as "Male Genital Mutilation" ..."

I wonder how long that will stay up there. But it is true, some do refer to it as that. :/

Edit: Already gone. :( We need to create a Male Genital Mutilation wiki.

[Aspie]

Corrected the very first sencence, "Circumcision, also known as "Male Genital Mutilation" ..."

I wonder how long that will stay up there. But it is true, some do refer to it as that. :/

Edit: Already gone. :( We need to create a Male Genital Mutilation wiki.

I hate trolls and the sad thing is some parents rely heavily on wikipedia.

[Tally]

Edit: Already gone. :(
My blood pressure goes up from just reading the discussion page for the circumcision wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision).

Primarily there is one person who has hijacked those pages in Wikipedia. He uses a hyper-technical interpretation to push his POV. Unless something is done about his editing, change will be next to impossible.

[Aspie]

My blood pressure goes up from just reading the discussion page for the circumcision wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision).

Primarily there is one person who has hijacked those pages in Wikipedia. He uses a hyper-technical interpretation to push his POV. Unless something is done about his editing, change will be next to impossible.

That's why we need a completely new article written up that is based upon the facts, instead of the interpretation of the facts because one of the requirements Alin has to deal with is that to replace an article another article needs to go up to replace it.

[greg_b]

I am willing to help. A good palce to start would be here, as it is written in a very balanced way and covers a lot of the issues. We can use it as a model.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/GenitalIntegrityStatement.pdf

Regards

[Joseph]

Found this program called "WikidPad"

http://wikidpad.sourceforge.net/

Looks like you can make wikis offline and then upload them.

Thinking of using this program to create some sort of circumcision/foreskin fact database.

Anyone know of other programs that might be helpful in building wikis offline etc?

This is what I got so far...

[Someone mundane]

My blood pressure goes up from just reading the discussion page for the circumcision wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision).

Primarily there is one person who has hijacked those pages in Wikipedia. He uses a hyper-technical interpretation to push his POV. Unless something is done about his editing, change will be next to impossible.

Are you referring to Jake by any chance? Simply from lurking, I've seen what that a-hole has been doing too. Try googling his account name sometime, it returns a ridiculous amount of results on varying webpages associated with circumcision in some way. He seems to be very busy with pushing his opinions that circumcision is not a bad thing... Curiously, his profile on wikipedia reads that he is a gay man who CHOSE to be cut... I just have to wonder how a person can be so obsessed and hypocritical. He got his choice and nobody condemns that or his reason, so why's he have to push his views into the territory of the ethics involved with infants? It's not his place to do so. Just ranting...

[Tally]

Are you referring to Jake by any chance? Simply from lurking, I've seen what that a-hole has been doing too. Try googling his account name sometime, it returns a ridiculous amount of results on varying webpages associated with circumcision in some way. He seems to be very busy with pushing his opinions that circumcision is not a bad thing... Curiously, his profile on wikipedia reads that he is a gay man who CHOSE to be cut... I just have to wonder how a person can be so obsessed and hypocritical. He got his choice and nobody condemns that or his reason, so why's he have to push his views into the territory of the ethics involved with infants? It's not his place to do so. Just ranting...
Jake frequently denies being pro-circ, but his actions prove otherwise. He has a long history of pushing the pro-circ point of view. I think the problem with the Wikipedia pages could be easily solved if he was banned from editing them. But, I fear an unintended consequence would be that he moves his efforts to another venue. Currently, his websites are languishing and he is not often seen outside Wikipedia.