- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
$4.69? Lol that's so six weeks ago.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
Every once in awhile, I will bump into a Wikipedia article written in the old days that is factual, non hysterical and a decent, well-sourced summary. Found this looking for something else today:
That is a pretty good example. Has had less than 100 edits since 2016, but current day Wikipedia editors I doubt would be so skeptical of the 'Intelligence Community'. Even though written in the days of peak Bush Derangement Syndrome, it manages to say things without breaking from Encyclopedic tone, ie no "Bush Lied" or "Cheney Lied".
That is a pretty good example. Has had less than 100 edits since 2016, but current day Wikipedia editors I doubt would be so skeptical of the 'Intelligence Community'. Even though written in the days of peak Bush Derangement Syndrome, it manages to say things without breaking from Encyclopedic tone, ie no "Bush Lied" or "Cheney Lied".
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2020
It's just like that one furfag who wrote literal nonsense on the Scottish Wikipedia
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2022
At the bottom of the page for Ronald McDonald (no relation), there's this little ditty:
Do we really need to know this? I've never seen such a non-event get as much publicity on kikepedia as the fucking 2016 clown meme that everyone and their mother memory-holed 3 - 4 years ago. In addition, how in the hell can anyone ascertain that Ronald McDonald stopped appearing in 2016 because of it, and not because of the fact he hadn't been seen in McDonald's promotional material for a good few years leading up to that point?
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
That 'clown sighting' article reeks of a hoax/joke, looking through the sources, it seems like random unconnected pranks that Wikipedians meme'd as a singular notable event.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
I mean it happened, there was a lot of hysteria in the fall of 2016. What I don't understand is why this article is talking about one-off sighting prior to the marketing stunt that kick-started the tread that year. They should completely purge the "Precursor sightings" section some guy alone in a clown outfit isn't a paranormal or unusual phenomena and it's not noteworthy for series of events they're writing about.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2022
The whole thing seems to have been massively blown out of proportion, partly by your average wikipedo classifying any group of clowns out in public as being part of this same movement. Chances are people were doing it as far back as Gacy was put on trial back in the '80s, but no-one gave a shit because the internet didn't exist yet.
BTW, one I remembered earlier, during my binge of FBI Files (fun fact: I watched it a month before he died IRL)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kallstrom
Come to think of it, you'll probably want the specific edit I read, before they added all the extra shit.
Okay, and? A lot of people share those beliefs. Where's the information regarding every other presidential campaign Kallstrom supported, if that sort of info is apparently relevant to the article? It's totally not because the editor who originally added it suffered from crippling TDS and seized every possible opportunity to inject it into random articles of people or things he/"she"/xey didn't like.
Strange Wilderness
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 30, 2020
You ever look up the page on Mac Tonight? For some reason they just had to include a section dedicated to the Internets favorite white supremacist rapper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Tonight#Moon_Man
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Would anyone remember the Mac Tonight campaign if not for Moon Man though? I think it is a fair addition, but I wish it wasn't as whiny.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
He's a minor "thing" in the vaporwave scene, like other artifacts of '80s capitalism. Don't ask me how I know.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2022
as a latinx i
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2022
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2014
You asked for Dumb Shit?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2021
There's a new cow called David/Katie Solomon and he claims to have gerascophobia (fear of growing old). I looked it up and the phobia-wiki article is so retarded and reads like a 13 yr old wrote it. Related articles suggested include: "Robloxslenderphobia".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
Not only is it obvious the intent, but what relevance does this have to the apparel at all? Any item of clothing can and will be sexualized by some retard pervert. Does the wikipedia article for diapers need a picture of pamperchu and an explanation of AB/DL for 'educational purposes'? At this point I wouldn't put it past wikipedia editors.
I want to print up another alternative sticker with this on it now. Might cost a fortune for how large the sticker will need to be, though.
David is so unique here with a fear that half the Earth would probably admit to. Want to add the fear of death to your label list too? Perhaps the fear of heights.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2014
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Urin.jpg (NSFW)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peeing_in_toilet.png (NSFW)
NOTE: If you search "Peeing" "Piss" "Urine" on WikiCommon's Search there's some straight up Porn of men peeing all over women and a woman peeing into a guy's mouth.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peeing_in_toilet.png (NSFW)
NOTE: If you search "Peeing" "Piss" "Urine" on WikiCommon's Search there's some straight up Porn of men peeing all over women and a woman peeing into a guy's mouth.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2022
This zoomed-in, AI-upscaled(?) phone shot is the "best" photo Wikipedia currently has of NASCAR driver Kevin Harvick:
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
For a good example of Wikifags being wikifags, look up any WW2 article.
Especially one that deal with the German side.
Now there used to be two people contributing to these articles: Autistic wehraboos and autistic WW2 enthusiasts.
As annoying as the former were, they at least occasionally contributed some good articles, that you could be sure referenced some obscure book printed in 5000 copies, that you never heard of before.
The result was a veritable goldmine for any re-enactor/model fag/WW2 sperg. Even if you couldn’t take an article exactly 100% at its word. (But hey, it’s Wikipedia, so par for the course.)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has in the last couple of years been invaded by trannies and SJW faggots, which for WW2 articles meant vandalizing them, cutting 50-80% of the content, and including plenty of “Nazis were bad, mmmkay?!”
The weapons included the usual ones these faggots yield: “Original research”, “reputable/unreputable source”, “bias” and all the other usual rules they weaponized and enforce inconsistently.
Want to know about a particular unit? Here’s an article where half the content is about some village they may or may not have burned at some point.
Want to know about a particular weapon? DID YOU KNOW that a minor subcontractor used SLAVE labor?
Want to know about a particular officer? Did you know he was a NAZI? And that a unit under his command might have shot some POWs at one occasion.
As performative and tiring as the above may be, all of the above might be worth a seperate article or whatever. But the majority of people looking up these articles don’t really give a toss, because they’re here because they played too much Hearts of Iron, want to know what kind of camouflage they should use for their WW2 diorama, or where the unit marker on a tank model they’re painting usually sat.
TLDR: Autism. Moralfags ruined what used to be a pretty good resource for anyone actually using it.
Especially one that deal with the German side.
Now there used to be two people contributing to these articles: Autistic wehraboos and autistic WW2 enthusiasts.
As annoying as the former were, they at least occasionally contributed some good articles, that you could be sure referenced some obscure book printed in 5000 copies, that you never heard of before.
The result was a veritable goldmine for any re-enactor/model fag/WW2 sperg. Even if you couldn’t take an article exactly 100% at its word. (But hey, it’s Wikipedia, so par for the course.)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has in the last couple of years been invaded by trannies and SJW faggots, which for WW2 articles meant vandalizing them, cutting 50-80% of the content, and including plenty of “Nazis were bad, mmmkay?!”
The weapons included the usual ones these faggots yield: “Original research”, “reputable/unreputable source”, “bias” and all the other usual rules they weaponized and enforce inconsistently.
Want to know about a particular unit? Here’s an article where half the content is about some village they may or may not have burned at some point.
Want to know about a particular weapon? DID YOU KNOW that a minor subcontractor used SLAVE labor?
Want to know about a particular officer? Did you know he was a NAZI? And that a unit under his command might have shot some POWs at one occasion.
As performative and tiring as the above may be, all of the above might be worth a seperate article or whatever. But the majority of people looking up these articles don’t really give a toss, because they’re here because they played too much Hearts of Iron, want to know what kind of camouflage they should use for their WW2 diorama, or where the unit marker on a tank model they’re painting usually sat.
TLDR: Autism. Moralfags ruined what used to be a pretty good resource for anyone actually using it.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
There is a woman who whittles down wiki entries of WWII german medal recipients with the intention of submitting a removal request to "delete" German heroes.