Several users kept pointing out aspartame metabolizes into formaldehyde and that aspartame wasn't approved for 16 years by the FDA until Donald Rumsfeld, former president of the company that manufactures it (Searle) gave the FDA commissioner the boot and appointed a new one.

The wikidorks (aspartame shills?) who police the aspartame article and prevent people from editing it could only respond by ignoring the entire conflict of interest and insisting over and over that the users pointing this out were "paranoid" and "conspiracy theorists" and falling back on industry-funded studies (literally the private corporation that made it studying it) saying it's safe, and the FDA being ultimately trustworthy. They accused the users of "writing a blog" and "diffusing history" (????) and said that this isn't what the talk page is for.

They said that the talk page is only for "suggesting ways to improve the article (that they police)" (????????) When that didn't work they finally accused their interlocutors of being traditional sugar shills, at which point someone responded that both sugar and aspartame are bad for you, and that the USA allows high fructose corn syrup while other countries don't, because it has lax regulations. This is when the entire conversation was shut the fuck down.

TL;DR wiki nerds get to invoke "it's not a forum" rule to shut down people "diffusing history" while accusing their interlocutors of being "paranoid conspiracy theorists" and claiming that pointing out conflicts of interest in the FDA approval is wrong because... the FDA is the most reliable source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame

  • ButtBidet [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I edit medical pages on Wikipedia. Let me summarise this without taking sides against anyone (honestly I have no fucking idea about the aspartame thing and I don't feel like reading deeply into it now).

    Medical articles look for "high quality articles". This means guidelines from medical bodies (like the CDC, NHS, or American Butthole Health Institute). They can also include "systematic reviews", which is where some scientist looked for as many articles as possible on a subject and put them together.

    It's rather hard for a single research article to get onto Wikipedia. Often enough this is a good thing, as Masks Don't Fucking Prevent Covid by Dr. InfowarsFan aren't allowed. This rule has been very positive with keeping amtivaxxers and ivermectin losers out of Wikipedia.

    One of the many disadvantages of Wikipedia is that there's a VERY strong bias towards the establishment. If the FDA says something, it's hard not to make that the heading of the article. If the NY Times said that Stalin killed billions, well fuck now Wikipedia insists that Stalin killed billions.

    If peeps here want to try to change the article, I'd recommend pouring over the FDA recommendations and systematic reviews for nuanced statements, like "there may be a risk for cancer". Yes, Wikipedia editing is masochist. I'm sorry.