Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Fapcop]

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.

Ah yes: The good ol’ “Better sources” BS.

For those of you who don’t understand just how much autism, of the best most dedicated kind there is in this field, there are people who spend months and years in dusty archives researching WW2 documents, so they can write their magnum opus.

Such as a complete list of all Knights Cross recipients. Or a unit history of a random, not particularly important Wehrmacht division, based on the German war archives.

A book on Hitler Youth daggers, and how to distinguish between the different manufacturers and obscure scabbard differences? Check!

Iron Crosses? There are several books. With whole chapters devoted to the makers marks and different hinges.

These books are sometimes self published, but usually published by specialty publishers in small runs of five or ten thousand.

But alas, since the authors are often amateurs who devoted decades into their obscure, little hobby, they’re not a “reputed source”.

(And if they are historians, they’ll find some other pedia-phile reason to exclude them.)

TLDR: What this woman is doing is basically trying to gut articles of any value, and replace all the sources with NYT articles, books by pop culture historians or “Dummies Guide to The Holocaust”-tier books.

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

Ah yes: The good ol’ “Better sources” BS.

For those of you who don’t understand just how much autism, of the best most dedicated kind there is in this field, there are people who spend months and years in dusty archives researching WW2 documents, so they can write their magnum opus.

Such as a complete list of all Knights Cross recipients. Or a unit history of a random, not particularly important Wehrmacht division, based on the German war archives.

A book on Hitler Youth daggers, and how to distinguish between the different manufacturers and obscure scabbard differences? Check!

Iron Crosses? There are several books. With whole chapters devoted to the makers marks and different hinges.

These books are sometimes self published, but usually published by specialty publishers in small runs of five or ten thousand.

But alas, since the authors are often amateurs who devoted decades into their obscure, little hobby, they’re not a “reputed source”.

(And if they are historians, they’ll find some other pedia-phile reason to exclude them.)

TLDR: What this woman is doing is basically trying to gut articles of any value, and replace all the sources with NYT articles, books by pop culture historians or “Dummies Guide to The Holocaust”-tier books.

And why? "Muh nazis"

 

[Basado]

Ah yes: The good ol’ “Better sources” BS.

For those of you who don’t understand just how much autism, of the best most dedicated kind there is in this field, there are people who spend months and years in dusty archives researching WW2 documents, so they can write their magnum opus.

Such as a complete list of all Knights Cross recipients. Or a unit history of a random, not particularly important Wehrmacht division, based on the German war archives.

A book on Hitler Youth daggers, and how to distinguish between the different manufacturers and obscure scabbard differences? Check!

Iron Crosses? There are several books. With whole chapters devoted to the makers marks and different hinges.

These books are sometimes self published, but usually published by specialty publishers in small runs of five or ten thousand.

But alas, since the authors are often amateurs who devoted decades into their obscure, little hobby, they’re not a “reputed source”.

(And if they are historians, they’ll find some other pedia-phile reason to exclude them.)

TLDR: What this woman is doing is basically trying to gut articles of any value, and replace all the sources with NYT articles, books by pop culture historians or “Dummies Guide to The Holocaust”-tier books.

It's all so tiresome...

 

[Clorox Cowboy]

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

Talk page is a total disaster.



An image of the assassination or even the road the day of the event somehow wouldn't improve the quality of the article according to some.


Half of the talk section is also just people debating if they need to have a section for every single world leaders reaction, like the boiler-plate condolences of some random European leader matters.

 

[Fapcop]

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

Talk page is a total disaster.

View attachment 3474396

An image of the assassination or even the road the day of the event somehow wouldn't improve the quality of the article according to some.


Half of the talk section is also just people debating if they need to have a section for every single world leaders reaction, like the boiler-plate condolences of some random European leader matters.

I was about to say his Wiki page pretty much sums up everything wrong about Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinzo_Abe

“Here’s an old NYT editorial about his response to some army brothels 8 decades ago! That should be given equal weight to his political opinions!”


And of course the usual autism on the talk page: “I wouldn’t call it an assassination but a murder hurr-durr!”

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

Talk page is a total disaster.

View attachment 3474396

An image of the assassination or even the road the day of the event somehow wouldn't improve the quality of the article according to some.


Half of the talk section is also just people debating if they need to have a section for every single world leaders reaction, like the boiler-plate condolences of some random European leader matters.

Russia, a neighbor and important trading partner for Japan isn’t included in the reactions because “Russia bad, mkay!” But fucking Ireland is. Lol!

 

[fat ass]

Half of the talk section is also just people debating if they need to have a section for every single world leaders reaction, like the boiler-plate condolences of some random European leader matters.

the great nation of east timor disrespected on a Wikipedia Talk page

 

[Least Concern]

Russia, a neighbor and important trading partner for Japan isn’t included in the reactions because “Russia bad, mkay!” But fucking Ireland is. Lol!

On the other side of the coin, Russia has at times been an enemy of Japan (see the Russo-Japanese war, which shocked the world when the smelly Orientals with the squiggly writing set the terms at the negotiation table over a massive European power like Russia), and the two have been in a territorial dispute since WWII over some large islands to the north of Japan that Abe was trying to resolve in Japan's favor. Russia's reaction should have perhaps slightly less importance than China's in the current day.

 

[Lucille Bluth]

For some reason, Wikipedia has a rule that virtually all famous composers cannot have an infobox. Also, they a rule that elementary schools, no matter how notable they are, do not have their own page. Even Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't have its own standalone page and neither does Robb Elementary (Uvalde Shooting). High schools and universities, even ones so obscure, have been allowed.

Prior to the shooting, Robb Elementary School had its own page, but the shooting brought to light the fact that an elementary school dare to have a standalone page on Wikipedia and it was swiftly deleted, now being a redirect to its school district page by early June.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

For some reason, Wikipedia has a rule that virtually all famous composers cannot have an infobox.

Oh god, you're right. And I thought the infobox wars were over, nope, not even poor ol Mozart has an infobox:

The reasoning is really retarded too, basically 2010 era editors didn't like them.

 

[Lucille Bluth]

Oh god, you're right. And I thought the infobox wars were over, nope, not even poor ol Mozart has an infobox:

View attachment 3476022

The reasoning is really retarded too, basically 2010 era editors didn't like them.

View attachment 3476032

Every consensus on Wikipedia boils down to the simple fact that some editors with loud voices support or do not support something. And it seems like once those users lay down their opinions, its useless to change their minds. There's an infobox template for musicians, singers and virtually every notable occupation, so I don't see why composers have to be an exception. If adding an infobox keeps getting asked, maybe the users that run the site should just add it? Things change in 10+ years.

With that note, I can't believe that someone named "Ray Cox" has a Wiki page even though their only claim to fame is having a high gamer score on X-Box Live (or whatever they're called now). 11 "reliable sources" have been cited for one paragraph of text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Cox_(gamer)

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Every consensus on Wikipedia boils down to the simple fact that some editors with loud voices support or do not support something. And it seems like once those users lay down their opinions, its useless to change their minds. There's an infobox template for musicians, singers and virtually every notable occupation, so I don't see why composers have to be an exception. If adding an infobox keeps getting asked, maybe the users that run the site should just add it? Things change in 10+ years.

Yeah, that is basically Wiki-"consensus" - enough literally who? editors will show up and mob a page discussion, regardless if they ever edited it. The reasoning seems to be, if I understand the old debate, artsy-fartsy types don't like them for some unclear reason. It seems though infoboxes ought to be basically mandatory at this point; an on high, ex-cathedra mandate for articles.

 

[as a latinx i]

Oh god, you're right. And I thought the infobox wars were over, nope, not even poor ol Mozart has an infobox:

View attachment 3476022

The reasoning is really retarded too, basically 2010 era editors didn't like them.

View attachment 3476032

Cassianto and SchroCat seen in that pic were the two biggest opponents of infoboxes for some retarded reason ("I spent more than a year writing my shitty paragraphs! how dare you want fast facts, you have to skim through my wall of text intro"). thankfully they left and now some of the no-infobox restrictions are being lifted

 

[Lucille Bluth]

Cassianto and SchroCat seen in that pic were the two biggest opponents of infoboxes for some retarded reason ("I spent more than a year writing my shitty paragraphs! how dare you want fast facts, you have to skim through my wall of text intro"). thankfully they left and now some of the no-infobox restrictions are being lifted

Those usernames sound familiar. Didn't one of them die IRL? Though I might be thinking of another user. Always wondered what happened to Cassianto. Seems like they were still active as of early 2020. They're on Wikipedia's Editing Restrictions page for infobox related stuff. Maybe that caused them to leave the site.

I've seen some famous, non-composer people who had infoboxes and then it was removed for some dumb reason. This included people like Cary Grant, Stanley Kubrick and Laurence Olivier. I'm pretty sure Grant and Kubrick have finally had infoboxes re-added. But for whatever reason, editors keep blocking Olivier's page from having one.

Yeah, that is basically Wiki-"consensus" - enough literally who? editors will show up and mob a page discussion, regardless if they ever edited it. The reasoning seems to be, if I understand the old debate, artsy-fartsy types don't like them for some unclear reason. It seems though infoboxes ought to be basically mandatory at this point; an on high, ex-cathedra mandate for articles.

Yeah, I noticed that "consensus" is usually reached by editors who have never edited/gave a shit about the page, or people with a weird obsession for the page's topic. The latter seems kind of biased to me (which I'm sure would be going against a guideline on Wiki about neutral POVs), but you know.

I'd bet a lot of famous, non-composer pages had their infoboxes removed in the past because of artsy-fartsy weirdos. Seems like the no-infobox rule pertains to notable people in the arts/entertainment industry. Pretty much every page, even those with hardly text in it has an infobox. I though it was something mandatory but Wikipedia claims they "have no rules".

 

[as a latinx i]

Didn't one of them die IRL?

you might be thinking of SlimVirgin, who died last year

 

[Baraadmirer]

Didn't one of them die IRL?

A longstanding member, Flyer22 frozen, supposedly died a year or so ago, but that might not be the case...

 

[Becky McDonald]

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

For about 10 straight years, this article has been threatened with deletion. As you can expect, "Notability" has been chucked around like a dog's bone, considering this guy was THE biggest e-celeb prior to Pewdiepie and unlike many other online series, AVGN's episodes have been officially distributed on DVD and Blu-Ray. There was even talk (IIRC) about deleting the main James Rolfe article, but I might be mistaken.

 

[Idiot Asshole]

This zoomed-in, AI-upscaled(?) phone shot is the "best" photo Wikipedia currently has of NASCAR driver Kevin Harvick:

Spoiler

View attachment 3465616

It's always fun to stumble on pages with awful low-res photos of their subjects, probably definitely taken by the editors themselves, because they're all too lazy to get permission for actual licensed photos. I found this one yesterday when I was reading up on The Stooges, here's the pics they have of a guy who played on their second album from 1970:


The first is taken in 2014, the second in 2007. Both blurry, out of focus and laughably tiny. The second one is especially bad, but that's because it's a lazy crop of a full band photo (which itself is low quality) that used to be on the main page for the band but has since been replaced (but still exists on a sub-page for Rage Against the Machine).

 

[Becky McDonald]

Just remembered, and it's kind of related to what I said earlier in regards to AVGN episodes:

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

Wikipedia has unique pages for AT LEAST 100 episodes of Family Guy. Certain pivotal episodes that had a cultural impact like the one Brian died is fine in my book, since it's often talked about in contemporary discourse. But can you really justify pages for stuff like this?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter's_Got_Woods

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean's_Three_and_a_Half

King of the Hill, in comparison, has just six episode pages:

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

And they are "And They Call It Bobby Love" due to its Emmy win, "Won't You Pimai Neighbor" because of the influence it had on Buddhist critics, "My Own Private Rodeo" because of Dale's dad being gay, "Lucky's Wedding Suit" and "Death Picks Cotton" for obvious reasons, and "To Sirloin With Love" for equally obvious reasons.

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

six episode pages

Thirty-five, look at the category.

 

[TVB]

Just remembered, and it's kind of related to what I said earlier in regards to AVGN episodes:

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

Wikipedia has unique pages for AT LEAST 100 episodes of Family Guy. Certain pivotal episodes that had a cultural impact like the one Brian died is fine in my book, since it's often talked about in contemporary discourse. But can you really justify pages for stuff like this?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter's_Got_Woods

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean's_Three_and_a_Half

King of the Hill, in comparison, has just six episode pages:

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

And they are "And They Call It Bobby Love" due to its Emmy win, "Won't You Pimai Neighbor" because of the influence it had on Buddhist critics, "My Own Private Rodeo" because of Dale's dad being gay, "Lucky's Wedding Suit" and "Death Picks Cotton" for obvious reasons, and "To Sirloin With Love" for equally obvious reasons.

A lof of autistic people go on Wikipedia that would prefer Family Guy, South Park or Rick & Morty over most other shows.