Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lily Says 41%! and chiobu
How come these Wikipedia editors seem to have A Cheese Pizza badge on their talk page.
 
This is six months old but I only just stumbled across it. Remember that infamous moment in 1969 when a violent black dude high on drugs and brandishing a gun was stabbed at a Rolling Stones concert and represented the whole retarded hippie movement crashing down? For years the article detailing the incident was titled with the dry and objective "Death of Meredith Hunter"; a title that perfectly encapsulated his death only being infamous as part of that larger narrative of the death of the "peace and love" 60s.
death.png

However, now it has the more charged title of "Killing of Meredith Hunter", which largely removes that gist and, in this "woke" era, makes it sound like yet another among a slew of racist murders.
killing.png

Here's the relevant part of the talk page detailing the arguments for and against moving it to its current title:
meredith hunter.png
The arguments for the change are weak, to say the least. And notice as well the bottom of the image, where a supporter of the change makes an "ackshually" excuse as to why changing the title of Hunter's page to "killing" is a-ok but the murder of the much more historically important Benito Mussolini should remain as "Death of Benito Mussolini".
______________________________________________
To be clear, I don't believe that this is some concerted effort to concoct a "racists killed a poor innocent black guy" narrative around this event. Rather, this is just an example of Wikipedia editors' biases coloring their judgments and making them come to stupid decisions like inserting lurid implications where there shouldn't be, and just another example of the site failing to be a proper encyclopedia like it wishes it was.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Lily Says 41%!, From The Uncanny Valley and 12 others
Idiot Asshole said:
This is six months old but I only just stumbled across it. Remember that infamous moment in 1969 when a violent black dude high on drugs and brandishing a gun was stabbed at a Rolling Stones concert and represented the whole retarded hippie movement crashing down? For years the article detailing the incident was titled with the dry and objective "Death of Meredith Hunter"; a title that perfectly encapsulated his death only being infamous as part of that larger narrative of the death of the "peace and love" 60s.
View attachment 3215456

However, now it has the more charged title of "Killing of Meredith Hunter", which largely removes that gist and, in this "woke" era, makes it sound like yet another among a slew of racist murders.
View attachment 3215449

Here's the relevant part of the talk page detailing the arguments for and against moving it to its current title:
View attachment 3215382
The arguments for the change are weak, to say the least. And notice as well the bottom of the image, where a supporter of the change makes an "ackshually" excuse as to why changing the title of Hunter's page to "killing" is a-ok but the murder of the much more historically important Benito Mussolini should remain as "Death of Benito Mussolini".
______________________________________________
To be clear, I don't believe that this is some concerted effort to concoct a "racists killed a poor innocent black guy" narrative around this event. Rather, this is just an example of Wikipedia editors' biases coloring their judgments and making them come to stupid decisions like inserting lurid implications where there shouldn't be, and just another example of the site failing to be a proper encyclopedia like it wishes it was.
Click to expand...
I remember posting about something similar concerning the murder of the Romanovs simply being called “an execution,” while Floyd OD’ing was declared a cold-blooded murder.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Elim Garak, Positron, Lily Says 41%! and 3 others
Least Concern said:
Maybe Musk should buy Wikipedia next.
Click to expand...
A different administration can't save Wikipedia, the concept is doomed to be bad. It's rare to find a good article on there, and when you do, it usually turns out to have been written by a single competent author with a few corrections from randoms at most. That's how you get good overviews of a topic, not by stitching together 20 fragments. Even our good OPs are written that way.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Positron, Lily Says 41%! and 4 others
No need to guess then the trigglypuffs of Wikipedia will dislike that article.

April 27, 2022

Wikipedia and the media suppressing info about Hunter Biden’s shady business dealings​

By Rajan Laad

Last week, the New York Post reported that Wikipedia had deleted its page dedicated to Rosemont Seneca Partners claiming it was “not notable”.
A Wiki Editor told the Post that Hunter’s firm is only mentioned in relation to its famous founders, Hunter Biden, Christopher Heinz, stepson of John Kerry, and Devon Archer. But “keeping it around” would cause the page to be “a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.”
The brief page was already scant in details.
It mentioned the names of the founders and states that Heinz ended his business relationship with the firm in 2014 after Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma.
The article stated that in 2015, Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners lead a $30 million Series A funding round for Metabiota.
The article concludes with a mention of Devon Archer being convicted on securities fraud and conspiracy charges in 2018.
Rosemont Seneca Partners, founded in 2009, is at the center of myriad questions surrounding Hunter's numerous shady overseas business dealings.
In his book, “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends” Peter Schweizer exposed the Democrat Washington Establishment as a self-promoting, self-preserving, corrupt, and nepotistic cabal.
Schweizer’s investigation revealed that then-Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Kerry negotiated sensitive and high-stakes deals with foreign governments while various entities of Rosemont secured a series of exclusive deals often with those very foreign governments.
Often those foreign entities gained favorable policy actions from the United States government just as the sons were securing favorable financial deals from those very entities.
Soon after the launch of Rosemont, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were in China, having secured access to the highest levels of China’s largest financial players.
The meeting occurred just hours before then-Vice President Biden, met with Chinese President Hu in Washington as part of the Nuclear Security Summit.
Another consultancy called the Thornton Group, based in Massachusetts and headed by James Bulger, the nephew of the convicted mobster James “Whitey” Bulger was also involved with Rosemont.
Schweizer wrote that in December 2013, Hunter joined his father Vice President Biden on Air Force Two for an official trip to China.
Here Hunter secured an exclusive deal for Rosemont with Chinese officials. Rosemont Seneca and the Bank of China created a $1 billion investment fund that enjoyed a special status in China. Since the Bank of China is government-owned, its function as a bank blurs into its role as a tool of the government. The deal was inked approximately 10 days after their China visit.
For a small firm such as Rosemont Seneca with no track record, this was a miraculous feat; the miracle makers here were Joe Biden and John Kerry.
To summarize, the Chinese government was literally funding a business that it co-owned along with the sons of two of the US’s most powerful decision-makers.
Click to expand...

Btw, I think they don't check often Conservapedia who have an entry about Rosemont Seneca Partners. https://www.conservapedia.com/Rosemont_Seneca_Partners
 
  • Informative
  • Political Sperging
Reactions: lolcow yoghurt, Oats12345, Gilgamesh and 2 others
Space nerds everywhere have been doing a find+replace from "manned" missions to "crewed" missions. (It's not just Wikipedia – even non-cucked youtubers like Scott Manley have adopted the gender-neutral nomenclature.)

One happy side effect is that press outlets will be forced to describe the first woman and first black guy on the moon with a word that sounds like "crude" (and – all politics aside – any space nerd will tell you that crude is an adequate summation of the development of the SLS rocket, right the way through to it's most recent failed launch rehearsal).

It's all the more galling however when you see it applied to historic space missions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

Screenshot 2022-04-29 at 01.06.20.png


Yes, that is is in quotation marks. Someone clearly got carried away with the CTRL-F. And this error has stood in the article untouched for over three years. But if you change "crewed" to "manned", it gets edited back within minutes.

For the record, I did open-mindedly begin to wonder if this meant the gender-neutral language had been in use much longer and I just didn't realise it until today. But of course – following the link to the NASA page that sources the quote reveals no such use of the C-word.

Screenshot 2022-04-29 at 01.29.26.png


For context, consider that three astronauts died in that ground test – a stark reminder that one usually sends men to do a dangerous job on the off-chance that a woman might get hurt.

But also consider: the change from "manned" to "crewed" helps us recognise the extremely vital role women and people of all genders played in our early exploration of the universe, and helps make space a more gender-equal place.
 
  • Feels
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Blatant hypocrite, Bush did USS Maine, Elim Garak and 24 others
DoubleD said:
Space nerds everywhere have been doing a find+replace from "manned" missions to "crewed" missions. (It's not just Wikipedia – even non-cucked youtubers like Scott Manley have adopted the gender-neutral nomenclature.)

One happy side effect is that press outlets will be forced to describe the first woman and first black guy on the moon with a word that sounds like "crude" (and – all politics aside – any space nerd will tell you that crude is an adequate summation of the development of the SLS rocket, right the way through to it's most recent failed launch rehearsal).

It's all the more galling however when you see it applied to historic space missions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

View attachment 3227789

Yes, that is is in quotation marks. Someone clearly got carried away with the CTRL-F. And this error has stood in the article untouched for over three years. But if you change "crewed" to "manned", it gets edited back within minutes.

For the record, I did open-mindedly begin to wonder if this meant the gender-neutral language had been in use much longer and I just didn't realise it until today. But of course – following the link to the NASA page that sources the quote reveals no such use of the C-word.

View attachment 3227828

For context, consider that three astronauts died in that ground test – a stark reminder that one usually sends men to do a dangerous job on the off-chance that a woman might get hurt.

But also consider: the change from "manned" to "crewed" helps us recognise the extremely vital role women and people of all genders played in our early exploration of the universe, and helps make space a more gender-equal place.
Click to expand...
Its sounds wrong
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Lily Says 41%!, From The Uncanny Valley and 1 other person
thebananaonion said:
i know this is years ago but this is the one supposed useless article that was useful to me one time during an art class.
one man's shit is another man's useful information I suppose.
Click to expand...
This is actually the kind of article I like on Wikipedia, where some random batch of autists got together and just put accurate information about some subject into a readable format. These are the frens the Internet should bring together.

Maybe they're literally the only people in the entire world who care about that subject, other than the other guy who comes across the article and maybe even adds something himself.

Also this is retarded and is about a guy who I don't like and would describe in exactly these terms myself:
Screenshot 2022-04-30 120520.png
"Fraudster?" Well, yes he is, obviously, but is that encyclopedic language? They could simply have neutrally named the crime of which he was actually convicted, or even used "convicted felon." He was indeed convicted of fraud and sentenced to an extremely harsh 45 years for a white guy who just stole some money.

I know the shit he did was bad, and he's still a con artist in his 80s, but seriously, here in Jesusland, was what he did so bad that it was in "die in Supermax completely insane" level bad? He was a really bad, dumb, corrupt, fake preacher. Welcome to murrica. It wasn't death penalty stuff.

My point is that while the fact this guy is demonstrably a criminal, and that is such a fundamental component of his reputation that it actually should be noted at the outset, I do not view "fraudster" and similar informal language as a reasonable depiction of someone in something purporting to be an encyclopedia.

"Convicted of fraud" is a neutral description of an actual event with legal meaning. "Fraudster" is a personal insult, and connotes more than it denotes.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Positron, LateNightMuffin and 13 others
AnOminous said:
This is actually the kind of article I like on Wikipedia, where some random batch of autists got together and just put accurate information about some subject into a readable format. These are the frens the Internet should bring together.

Maybe they're literally the only people in the entire world who care about that subject, other than the other guy who comes across the article and maybe even adds something himself.
Click to expand...
A few posts in this thread have criticized wikipedia for having "useless articles" (usually just recent social/political phenomenon), but I think that those useless articles fit wikipedia's intended purpose. Those articles are real things that happened and people have talked about, and I think it's important we preserve that for future generations. Wikipedia is meant to be one huuuuge encyclopedia that has, on a surface level, entries on everything we humans have made, done, or discovered. That's fucking badass.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Madre Muerte, Lily Says 41%! and 7 others
Gilgamesh said:
Wikipedia is meant to be one huuuuge encyclopedia that has, on a surface level, entries on everything we humans have made, done, or discovered. That's fucking badass.
Click to expand...
You got it, you got it, you got it. You got the only reason we tolerate the existence of this absolute shithole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, True Boss of this Gym, From The Uncanny Valley and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back