Wikipedia Fun Fact

Wikipedia is real bad on a few things, fat acceptance and feminism being two of the worst.

Wikipedia is great for non-controversial subjects. Its very strength in allowing everyone to participate, though, is its downfall in creating very unstable entries whereever there's a difference of opinion. And I think it's pretty clear that there's a difference of opinion about fat, weight, and health.

I note that there's a flag on the entry that says "citations needed" as of Feb. '08. I also note that there are now a BOATLOAD of citations. The only one I spotted still missing is one that says that the NAAFA leadership changed around the turn of the century. I'm impressed with the extensive list, though I imagine there are still ways to dismiss the cites as "irrelevant" or "not strong enough." Still. That's a LOT of citations!

...so add cited criticism sections to the Atkins, NutriSystem, and Weight Watchers entries? Though I notice Atkins does have a "Controversies" section and is marked as having its neutrality under dispute, and the NutriSystem entry is marked for rewrite because it "reads like an advertisement". Only the Weight Watchers entry is both uncritical and entirely unmarked.

Wikipedia only says what people put in it, and unlike, say, Britannica, it actually has ways to counter entries that seem biased to us in their current form. If we feel an article is biased -- unlike most places -- we can FIX it. We just have to write our section, link our cites, and be prepared to go back and fix it when necessary.

Sadly, the fat acceptance movement is considered radical and controversial by a lot of people.

Good luck trying to explain that to the resident geniuses at Wikipedia.

There are other articles on there that are supremely offensive to fat people, and very (in my opinion) unsubstantiated, but they do not receive the notability, NPOV or other questioning flags that the Fat Acceptance article has received in the past.

Because that's how Wikipedia works; it is essentially ruled by the majority, and the majority all share similar biases. Until we have stronger representation (by having lots of people who are at least neutral about fat acceptance, if not activists, start writing and editing there) these kinds of biased decisions will stand.

You're absolutely right - so long as the majority remain brainwashed, pretty much everything 'mainstream' will reflect that view, and so the brainwashing will continue, in a perpetually intensifying vicious cycle which I have no idea how we're ever going to break. With the population being so woefully misinformed (an ignorance by no means restricted to their approach to fat), there can be little that's democratic or independent about 'citizen media', since those authoring it will be merely parroting the line of their big media 'masters'.

"It is possible to be fat and fit; not everyone is meant to, or can, be thin. The scourge of modern society is not obesity, but body fascism" - Amy Lamé

I'm not sure why we should have to keep trawling Wikipedia to remove that which is unreasoned, why do they put it up?

Fat acceptance is about fat not obesity, so 'unconditional acceptance of obesity is unhealthy' is actually right it is, which is why a lot of people don't unconditionally accept it!!
If you are going to criticise something, surely you should know what it is, the critics don't seem to as far as I can tell, why should we have to correct this sort of nonsense?

In the end fat acceptance is self acceptance, if you belive in taking a view of yourself that sustains your mental health, then you are practising fat acceptance, no matter what size you are, if you believe that is wrong then say how not supporting your mental health has served your health. If you practise self acceptance, how can you pretend that not accepting yourself serves health? Are you going to tell us why you wish to destroy yourself?

I personally don't have the inclination or the access to master Wikipedia, blatant irrelevancy and wrongheadness should not require constant correction or Wiki is not working.