That iconic photo also seems to be lacking from non-English articles. The Russian one is an exception.
Copyrights. They are quite rightfully paranoid about copyrights. Most images of Cobain are copyrighted and by people who derive income from having taken some iconic picture of Cobain and they aren't going to let Wikipedo use it. And they shouldn't. And if I somehow took an iconic photograph of someone and they put it on Wikipedo I'd sue the cocksuckers into oblivion because I fucking hate them.
Oh my god it really does, I skimmed some of it and it really and truly does read like a lolcow thread OP!
I feel like this subject is discussed often here, so pardon me if it’s just the same repeated chorus you all read here. But I’m sure you must have noticed by now the sheer fucking autism that these political subject pages are comprised of. The amount of autistic detail that goes into these long ass pages rivals that of a Kiwifarms thread. The political figures threads, the BLM related pages, etc. All the excessive detail makes me wonder what’s wrong with the people writing them.
I used to believe that pages of important people would be longer, but nope, it's the political pages. Wikipedos have a weird way of trying to convince you that they're right. Besides citing a lot of mainstream media articles they also cite the opinion of some random acadademic/author on the subject. Their go-to guy for this used to be noam chomsky, but they stopped since people started noticing it. Sometimes they mess it up really bad because the academic/author doesn't even specialize in politics or is just not a person who is taken seriously.
That's sort of like citing Paul Krugman as an authoritative source on technology. I mean personally speaking I agree with a lot of what Chomsky says but he isn't an actual authority outside linguistics, where he definitely is. That's just like, his opinion, man.
Even in linguistics his theories are increasingly contested
I forget his name but there's these three academics that are the communists apologists favorite 3 like fascist and downplay Soviet atrocities but don't call them communist because they're not communists
You notice this a ton with so-called "far right" figures; their pages often short will consist of Insert John Doe is a far right conspiracy theorist Neo-Nazi who, according to the SPLC and ADL, is racist academic Jane Doe at Harvard has described Johns views as Neo-Nazi. Go to any page of people like Jared Taylor, and you see this sort of slander.
The most retarded part in all of this is that Wikipedo literally cherrypicks these people and only choose a paraghraph that agrees with them. And thay don't do it just on the pages of "far right" figures, they do it on most pages, it's called "Criticism" or "Controversy". It's always "Jane Doe at BlowMe University says Johnny is a neo-Nazi", it's never "Jane Doe at BlowMe University says Johnny is a neo-Nazi because he admires Hitler and believes in pan-Germanism and anti-Semetism".
Exactly another thing I would like to add is how Wikipedia emphasizes the importance of certain "far right" figures. For example, Vox Day is mentioned as one of Trump's top endorsements, as if he actually matters to most people on the right. Another example I noticed is on the pages of the elections in the 2000s, there are a ton of mentions of Pastor Chuck Baldwin, who, from what I read, seems like a based guy, but he is made out to be this extremely important figure in right-wing politics, even though I'm sure most conservatives you ask don't even know who he is.
They want to believe think everyone who is a right-winger was fooled by some sort of cult leader.
Is this the Mandela effect, or did there used to be a picture of Cobain with a green shirt smoking a cigarette?
They call them anti-anti-communists. Two names I can think of are kristen ghodsee and michael parenti, parenti usually gets clowned on when he gets brought up in actual discussions however.
