Wikipedia Nofap - Why so horrible?

I'm curious about the NoFap wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoFap. Why does it describe the community and our mission with such bias and so horribly?

Few examples:

"The group's views and efforts to combat pornography addiction have been criticized as simplistic,[12] outdated, and incorrect by neuroscientists, psychologists, and other medical professionals"

"The purported science behind the group's activities said to come from anti-porn activist Gary Wilson,[15] "an Oregon man with no scientific training or background, who has made a career peddling pseudoscience.""

"According to various sources, the overwhelming majority of all websites and YouTube channels devoted to anti-masturbation and anti-porn addiction propaganda, channels, and websites supporting NoFap are owned by far-right, religious fundamentalists, and conservative who are biblical inerrantists, and also are entirely political in nature"

They even misrepresented Paula Hall =>

"Therapist Paula Hall for The Huffington Post was asked about NoFap claims of "physical health benefits mentioned including renewed energy, greater focus, concentration, and better sleep" and responded "there is little medical evidence for any of these changes""

... and more and more, which I'm not gonna quote here. The overall language of the article appears to be somewhat sarcastic too.

As a huge fan of Wikipedia, which I consider a very trusted source of information and have used for many years, this article confuses me and enrages me.

Any explanation?

 

I forgot this quote, which is the most brilliant one:

"Another study reported a similar pattern that NoFap Reddit members also were likely to be supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump"

 

@Mr.Tony @Sir Übermensch III Could you elaborate?

Bought or corrupted by whom? Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. Most articles I've read - even highly technical ones - are usually of excellent quality.

 

I agree with you. If it wasn't for some high-profile scientists speaking publicly about it, I would question myself and everyone here, based on that wikipedia article alone.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

Who - apart from the porn industry - would benefit from such propaganda?

I'm not questioning your rationale. I'm just trying to understand. I never read something so biased in Wikipedia. And there are way more sensitive topics than this one (e.g. political topics)

 

Thanks for the clarification. This makes few things more sensible now.

I haven't been on the site for that many years, and I haven't paid attention to the subreddit, so I haven't been aware of any right-wing or religious connotations to any of this. In fact, I believe I've seen references that this site is based on secular values. Porn addiction is not related to political or religious ideology anyway (although I do understand why people have the need to incorporate their beliefs in their recovery, as many 12-step programs do).

I agree that NoFap is not a medically recognizable thing, but so is this addiction itself. I just felt, as you probably did, that it was way more dishonest than factual.

 

This is a dialectical explanation. There's nothing wrong with your logic. Do you have any evidence though?

 

I agree. But you could apply the same logic to many phenomena, including other addictions and other mental disorders. Why create propaganda only for porn? Why constrain people from other dangerous drugs?