Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
I've never understood this take. Sure, vandalism happens on Wikipedia and people make bad edits, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!". That includes you. If you don't agree with a specific point in an article and have the ability to fix it, then make it better. You can't say it's unreliable without offering to address the unreliability.
The vast majority of edits are made by experts and nerds in their fields of study getting overly-pedantic about what details should be included in an article. Read the "Talk" page of most articles to see the pedantism in action. Provide a better way to getting at most accurate and updated source of truth we have as a human society, than nerds arguing about topics they're experts in.
Wikpedia's self-policing system does indeed work pretty well for hobby topics until the subject is controversial or politically charged. I remember looking up the 'gender ideology' page expecting to see a level-headed analysis of what people meant when they used this term (i.e. sex is immutable, social contagion aspects of 'gender identity', etc.) Instead, the page was the most high school, ad hominem, scattergun drivel I'd ever read, completely at odds with the majority of wikipedia pages both in tone and in content. Trans activist wiki editors have taken complete control of that page and it is immediately and painfully obvious. It claimed that the movement was both Russian disinformation and rooted deeply in Catholicism. It claimed that it is far right and wanted to end reproductive rights. It shares quotes by the Canadian Security Service (lol) about how those opposed to gender ideology (who tend to mainly be middle aged mums) represent an extreme risk of violence, whereas, back in reality, these same women are physically attacked and intimidated by young male trans activists virtually everywhere they go and the reverse has literally never been seen, or it would be all we hear about on the news every day for 6 weeks.
So no, you can't just 'fix' a wikipedia page because certain topics (particularly with important ones like women's rights) have a small army of basement-dwelling misogynist virgins ready to delete your edits.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
In a statement sent to Runner’s World, Lululemon wrote: “We are committed to upholding equitable competition in sport for all and intentionally partner with ambassadors who embody these same values. After careful consideration and conversation, we have decided to end our ambassador partnership with Camille. We want to acknowledge Camille’s achievements during our partnership and wish her well in her future endeavors.”
I don't want to read the entire thread but I beleive I saw someone paraphrase you that you can't wait for Citius Magazine to research the story as they are unbiased.
Canadian Running Magazine is publication as legit as they come, adhering to the rigor and customary journalistic standards and practices of the industry. I don't look at Citius Magazine, so withold judgement in terms of bias, but the one instance that I saw a fangirl in the media zone interviewing a top-level athlete shocked me. I thought some fan has snuck into the media zone, but she was representing Citius. It was a terrible display of bias in favour of the athlete and very bubblegum fan behaviour. No legit publication should hire or have interns or be represented by that behavior. Canadian Running Magazine certainly would not.
Whatever Herron's defence may be, it will have to be an amazing story to get out of this with her reputation in tact, but yes, she is innocent until proven guilty. Or not guilty until proven otherwise.
Wikpedia's self-policing system does indeed work pretty well for hobby topics until the subject is controversial or politically charged. I remember looking up the 'gender ideology' page expecting to see a level-headed analysis of what people meant when they used this term (i.e. sex is immutable, social contagion aspects of 'gender identity', etc.) Instead, the page was the most high school, ad hominem, scattergun drivel I'd ever read, completely at odds with the majority of wikipedia pages both in tone and in content. Trans activist wiki editors have taken complete control of that page and it is immediately and painfully obvious. It claimed that the movement was both Russian disinformation and rooted deeply in Catholicism. It claimed that it is far right and wanted to end reproductive rights. It shares quotes by the Canadian Security Service (lol) about how those opposed to gender ideology (who tend to mainly be middle aged mums) represent an extreme risk of violence, whereas, back in reality, these same women are physically attacked and intimidated by young male trans activists virtually everywhere they go and the reverse has literally never been seen, or it would be all we hear about on the news every day for 6 weeks.
So no, you can't just 'fix' a wikipedia page because certain topics (particularly with important ones like women's rights) have a small army of basement-dwelling misogynist virgins ready to delete your edits.
Yeah, it can be pretty baffling when you realize that your viewpoints that seem normal in this insular LR world are not shared by much of the real world out there.
Looks like her Instagram is active again. It still lists lululemon and squirrel nut butter on it even though they both apparently dropped her. Is she just going to pretend that they didn't?
Currently has 98.7K followers. It will be interesting to see if that number drops or not. It is actually pretty rare for people to "unfollow" someone even if they no longer actually follow them so I don't expect it will change much. If it does then people are really turning their back on her.
Looks like her Instagram is active again. It still lists lululemon and squirrel nut butter on it even though they both apparently dropped her. Is she just going to pretend that they didn't?
Currently has 98.7K followers. It will be interesting to see if that number drops or not. It is actually pretty rare for people to "unfollow" someone even if they no longer actually follow them so I don't expect it will change much. If it does then people are really turning their back on her.
Twitter is still gone.
The vast majority of "followers" on any platform consists of people who no longer log-in. Consistent number of comments and likes on posts are a better measure of meaningful reach.
Since her doors are falling off that would be a good choice.
The problem is, that CH was always a toxic brand. She wasn't able to keep Nike or Hoka. Each of them just lasted a year or two. I am sure branding experts saw how she was dishing it out to her criticizing fan base.
Yeah, it can be pretty baffling when you realize that your viewpoints that seem normal in this insular LR world are not shared by much of the real world out there.
Talk about missing the point.
A) as evidenced by literally every public poll on the subject, my 'viewpoint' is in fact the massive majority and the rapidly changing legal landscape around this issue (see Cass review, ditching of puberty blockers across Europe as 'bad science', countless recent legal and tribunal losses for gender ideologists in UK, no teaching of gender in UK primary schools) show that the societal zeitgeist has very much moved on from gender theory. Wikipedia has not.
B) Even if all that weren't true, the standards on that page objectively do not meet anywhere near the standards of Wikipedia in general. The claims and sourcing is pathetic and it mentions none of the above (rather damn relevant) points. But if one page can be compromised by an avid gang of anonymous activists, they all can be. Therefore it is flawed.
I also read recently that she accuses anyone who has broken one of her records of cheating.
Can’t stand her
I've met Camille at a race and she is one of the strangest people I've ever met. It was impossible to carry on a conversation with her. She was in her own world the entire time. As others have alluded to there are likely some mental health issues at play.
Looks like "Sirfurboy", an editor with 19,000 edits, must be "bullying" Herron online, too. Seemed to be do a serious cleanup of her page yesterday. Will she respond?
So I noticed that one of the things that was on a (previous?) version of Camille’s Wikipedia page, was this bit about “Camille has spoken out about Issue A, Issue B, Issue C.”
One of them sounded phony to me, which was “Camille has spoken out about (her experience with) perimenopause” — since she is 42 still, and average onset of menopause is 52ish. Can someone run it by their wife or something? Is this pure garbage just to have something to say to be in the spotlight and look like an important activist?
The citation was a runners world article of more or less the same title (“Camille Herron speaks out about perimenopause” or similar)
I am female and seven years older than she is, and it raised eyebrows with me. I have no personal experience yet with menopause — so what is the likelihood that she is just making this sh!t up?
Kind of trying to display herself as “a good human who speaks out.” Except by inventing stories on the fly. Also, self-diagnosing anytime it suits her?
Camille shared way, way too much information about her periods on social media, even saying she feels "empowered" by her period. I call horse crap.
Why do women feel the need to go on a high horse and shout out loud to everyone they got their period today? Do you hear me shouting out loud about my hemorrhoids?
