the Wikipedia about this site is really bad

[Not A Fan]

I just inadvertently stumbled upon the Wikipedia entry about this message board forum. It really rubbed me the wrong way.

I haven't been a vigorous participant here, but just finding this site and being able to engage with other people who understand has actually helped my mental health immensely.

I guess i should know better by now how irrational our society is, but it still shocks me sometimes when I see such glaring examples. I simply feel that no one should be able to decide over someone else's life. There's such hypocrisy when people talk about "freedom" and "liberty" and then think its cool to force their personal worldview down everyone's throat.

I think most people are sick of humanity, but the denial is fierce, and they go on the attack for anyone who wishes to excuse themselves from this sickening all-you-can-eat buffet of consolation prizes and psychological kitsch.

It's such a huge relief to find oneself in a space where it's acceptable to admit that the product doesn't live up the nice picture on the packaging, without risking being traumatically imprisoned by "the good guys." AKA thought police

 

[ASp4E]

Something interesting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sanctioned_Suicide:

Q2: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources?

A2: "Reliable source" is a term of art on Wikipedia that refers to a specific type of sourcing that has editorial control, such as most newspapers and traditionally published books. This is related to our policies on verifiability and due weight, as sources without editorial control are considered less likely to have fact-checking confirming their verifiability, or may be about aspects of the subject too minor to include on Wikipedia. While self-published sources can sometimes be of high quality, they are not usually permitted on Wikipedia, which generally takes the perspective of a subject reflected in traditional sources as a consequence of verifiability and due weight policies.

So I assume there would need to be more "reliable sources" sharing viewpoints in support of the site to change the tone of the article. And I'm guessing it's not very profitable to have an article in support of this site, compared to one in opposition? Not to mention incentives to spread propaganda and promote "think of the children" censorship and surveillance.

 

[Not A Fan]

Something interesting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sanctioned_Suicide:



So I assume there would need to be more "reliable sources" sharing viewpoints in support of the site to change the tone of the article. And I'm guessing it's not very profitable to have an article in support of this site, compared to one in opposition? Not to mention incentives to spread propaganda and promote "think of the children" censorship and surveillance.

What I find strange, is that other pages on Wikipedia have material that seems to support the viewpoint of this site, but they are not directly related. For example look up the Wiki page for the writer Tomasz Witkowski. The very last paragraph has his views about suicide which I totally agree with. Wikipedia is kind of hit-and-miss I guess.

This is what is says:

Suicide is a long stigmatized matter according to Witkowski. He notes that society packaged suicide in a particular type of hypocrisy, where it's either presented as an admirable act of heroism (when committed in the name of God, homeland, honor etc), or as a mortal sin (when carried out in order to end one's own misery). We euthanize animals when they are suffering but condemn humans who see suicide as a way to end suffering. He says, "we have treated death unambiguously as an evil, and consequently we impose the obligation to live on others".

 

[amaluuk]

What I find strange, is that other pages on Wikipedia have material that seems to support the viewpoint of this site, but they are not directly related. For example look up the Wiki page for the writer Tomasz Witkowski. The very last paragraph has his views about suicide which I totally agree with. Wikipedia is kind of hit-and-miss I guess.

This is what is says:

Suicide is a long stigmatized matter according to Witkowski. He notes that society packaged suicide in a particular type of hypocrisy, where it's either presented as an admirable act of heroism (when committed in the name of God, homeland, honor etc), or as a mortal sin (when carried out in order to end one's own misery). We euthanize animals when they are suffering but condemn humans who see suicide as a way to end suffering. He says, "we have treated death unambiguously as an evil, and consequently we impose the obligation to live on others".

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort with multiple separate editors that don't always mingle in the same circles, so it's likely that pages like Tomasz Witkowski's would have people who enjoyed his work and are therefore amendable to his views, while the people tending to Sanctioned Suicide's page are...from a different audience let's say.

 

[DefinitelyReady]

Yeah, I'm not a superfan of this site because of it's attitude toward the outside world. Most recently that "Don't care" remark from one of the founders. I think that makes us look like the monsters they portray us as. Having a simple, steady, on-hand response that defends our rights while still being sensitive to the grieving families who found that their kid used this site for the method info is not unreasonable. It's certainly necessary imo to uphold a reputation. I don't think having a responsible reply to release is a hard request at all. At the same time, while Kenneth's Law is trying to be made, I took offense at the lack of a well-rounded and factual report portraying us in a much darker light. I was rather miffed and vented about it, and wrote "Discoveries" in the Sanctuary thread if interested.

 

[Kavka]

If I were a Wikipedian who is not suicidal himself or who visits the site regularly, I would have written this article the same way. The NYT, BBC, etc. are generally good sources, especially compared to what the moderators of a site say themselves.

The article itself makes no value judgements. It simply mentions that other sources have portrayed it as pro-suicide, while SS denies this and says it is pro-choice. I think the authors could do better when it comes to making a distinction between history and how it's run today, because it's been mixed up in places. They have a section on the history of Galante and Small, which is good, but Small also quoted in the site overview section. I'm not sure their viewpoint is relevant to how the site is run today.

It's Wikipedia, so anyone can edit it if they can back it up!

 

[Not A Fan]

If I were a Wikipedian who is not suicidal himself or who visits the site regularly, I would have written this article the same way. The NYT, BBC, etc. are generally good sources, especially compared to what the moderators of a site say themselves.

The article itself makes no value judgements. It simply mentions that other sources have portrayed it as pro-suicide, while SS denies this and says it is pro-choice. I think the authors could do better when it comes to making a distinction between history and how it's run today, because it's been mixed up in places. They have a section on the history of Galante and Small, which is good, but Small also quoted in the site overview section. I'm not sure their viewpoint is relevant to how the site is run today.

It's Wikipedia, so anyone can edit it if they can back it up!

Point taken. I appreciate hearing from someone with a different perspective. It's definitely not Wikipedia's fault; they tend to have a pretty open-minded culture on whole (from my perception anyway.) I think I might have already been kind of wound-up when I started reading it so that might have made me overreact.

The content of Wikipedia's entries are cut-n-paste from other media. If a site or subject has received nothing but of bad press (due to cultural taboos surrounding it, for example), then that's all the editors have to choose from. I guess most reputable journalists and publications would consider it career suicide to suggest that anyone might have a positive experience here.

Great response. Thank you!

Yeah, I'm not a superfan of this site because of it's attitude toward the outside world. Most recently that "Don't care" remark from one of the founders. I think that makes us look like the monsters they portray us as. Having a simple, steady, on-hand response that defends our rights while still being sensitive to the grieving families who found that their kid used this site for the method info is not unreasonable. It's certainly necessary imo to uphold a reputation. I don't think having a responsible reply to release is a hard request at all. At the same time, while Kenneth's Law is trying to be made, I took offense at the lack of a well-rounded and factual report portraying us in a much darker light. I was rather miffed and vented about it, and wrote "Discoveries" in the Sanctuary thread if interested.

My impression was that the "don't care" was a single SMS text reply, taken out of context from a longer conversation? Regardless, I think your suggestion is excellent and hopefully the powers-that-be will have that discussion in the near future.

I'm still pretty new here, so I've only encountered a few isolated cases of the attitude you refer to. I have to admit, when I first read that SaSu was founded by two self-proclaimed "incel" men, it made squirm a little bit. Supposedly they are also active in a subculture called "manosphere." As a conscientious objector against participating in 'social' media, I had never encountered the term, which, sure enough, turns out to be something I wish I had never heard about.

I think that may be the idea behind the media's emphasis on the orientation of the site's founders, to discourage people like from me from even checking it out.

However, I don't believe in guilt by association, nor essentialism of any kind. I have never interacted with the site's founders. It's not even apparent whether they are still active here. Most of the users I have interacted with seem to be kind, tolerant, thoughtful, empathetic and deeply concerned with human suffering. In other words, this is not 4Chan. But I feel like that's what reporters are trying to insinuate by placing such disproportionate weight on the founders of this site, which regardless of their own dispositions, seems to have taken on a life and character of its own. Of course, just like anywhere, there are going to be a few assholes trying to stir shit up (but in this case, the focus will be exclusively on them.)

That being said, I am not 'superfan' of the site either (or anything... it's in my name!) But I've really enjoyed talking to people on here so far. It sure beats being totally isolated and caught up in endless internal ruminations with no outlet.

I'll check out your other thread that you mentioned.