- Joined
- Sep 30, 2022
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
What article is this from? I don't see it on either the Trump or the election article.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
That article has been discussed in this thread.
Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A few months ago, there was a talk consensus to delete the "Scholar surveys of diversity and racism" section on the grounds that it is only about a single aspect of a president, whereas the article is about evaluation as a whole, and also that the sourcing is poor.
Well, unsurprisingly, a few editors decided it should be brought back. There were back-and-forth edits, the latest proclaiming "restore per long-standing consensus" and keeping it.
Discussion seems to have died down; the force of Wikipedia's far left editors to push this garbage overrides actual policy. Then a Wikipedo added that photo and caption to drive the point that Trump is rayciss.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It's not really the own they think it is to include Andrew Jackson, who is well regarded by many people to this day. I'm not a fan, but comparing the guy you think is mega-Hitler to someone who is still on the $20 bill is pretty bad propaganda. I guess they figure they only need appeal to their own deranged echo chamber.
Similarly, while Johnson was incredibly ineffective, this was largely because he was crippled by a politically motivated impeachment under a law now regarded as flagrantly unconstitutional (the Tenure of Office Act). Gee, I wonder how that's similar to a current President being held responsible for an "insurrection" for rhetoric telling his supporters to march on D.C.
It's not just propaganda, it's really bad propaganda.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
Funny that FDR is absolved of interning Japanese Americans in the sources that were chosen by the editors.
I thought the Japanese were in concentration camps per the left wing hysteria about ICE detention centers.
FDR appointed a "former" Klan member to the Supreme Court as well
Additionally, FDR snubbed Jesse Owens a Black Olympic gold medalist.
Finally, FDR turned away a boat full of Jews escaping NAZI Germany.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
Fucking criple fuck made Woodrow Wilson look good. His damage has permanently scarred the USA.
bush911
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2024
This reminds me of the article comparing ice facilities to forced labor camps for Jews.
The people who write Wikipedia think Jackson is the heckin racist chud who murdered Native Americans for no reason, so it works.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I think the way we treated the Cherokee in particular, shredding our treaties with them despite them having actually lived up to their end, was shameful and dishonorable. That said, not a President from George Washington on hadn't done similar things.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
Walton and Smith's retarded lists include 17 presidents as both "white supremacist" and "institutionally racist" yet the image picks only three to represent this combination: the two Andrews and Trump.
As an editorial decision, it makes no sense to single out this small sample. It likely represents the personal views, and antipathy towards these three, of User:Jengod, who added the image and the edit.
As an editorial decision, it makes no sense to single out this small sample. It likely represents the personal views, and antipathy towards these three, of User:Jengod, who added the image and the edit.
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
I've run into Jengod before, she has a hobby horse for the history of slavery in the US (obviously a legitimate subject) but down to the level of relatively minor figures connected to it (such as barely notable slave traders). Then she has theories like this:
If you look at the articles that are largely written by her, they sound unencyclopedic and just downright badly written.
She is mentioned a few times on Wikipedia Sucks (main wikipedia criticism site now), where it is claimed that she is a journalist in LA (but real name unknown) as well as the main contributor to the NAFO article.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
From "her" (we sure it's not a fat hairy dude?) user page, under "Work: Articles created 2024":
Good to know an assassination attempt on a presidential candidate doesn't meet notability requirements as per a bunch of wikipedos, but Tom Holland's Lip Sync Battle performance of "Umbrella" does. Never change, Wikipedia.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2022
I really wasn't kidding when I said the Wikipedia playpen for newbies is full of Rampreet making articles about their brother's call center in Poojay, Uttar Pradesh.
Last edited by a moderator:
SuccubusFeeder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2024
I'm used to Wikipedia just lying by omission or using language "tricks" (eg: refusing to call castro a dictator, calling certain terrorist groups "militants"), but this is too much even for them.
Anyways, today I learned that an unfunny twitter troon, tyler gregory sternbach (@canteverdie) has an entire wikipedia page.
most of this guy's posts revolve around wanting to genocide White and non-troons btw
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
- Joined
- May 19, 2024
Well, he's a troon and english Wikipedia is the tranny agitprop. Byuu has a page for that very same reason
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
Link to actual article:
How is a single reply tweet (unfunnily) mocking Musk encyclopedic? There are probably thousands of such tweets per day.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
Because it furthers The Message
.
One must understand when dealing with communists and their NGO skinsuits and fake experts: The problems they complain about are never the problems actually being talked about, it's capitalism. And the solution will ALWAYS be communism.
In this case, the "problem" is not a lack of information on subjects but in fact a insufficient amount of propaganda favorable towards Marxist goals and the neoliberal hegemony, and as such the solution is always to keep tipping the scales to push "correct opinions" more and more.
Remember: "The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false." It doesn't matter that you know it's bullshit and can prove it, point out the double standard, factually show the lie. The purpose of the system is being fulfilled and the jannies are complicit.
.One must understand when dealing with communists and their NGO skinsuits and fake experts: The problems they complain about are never the problems actually being talked about, it's capitalism. And the solution will ALWAYS be communism.
In this case, the "problem" is not a lack of information on subjects but in fact a insufficient amount of propaganda favorable towards Marxist goals and the neoliberal hegemony, and as such the solution is always to keep tipping the scales to push "correct opinions" more and more.
Remember: "The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false." It doesn't matter that you know it's bullshit and can prove it, point out the double standard, factually show the lie. The purpose of the system is being fulfilled and the jannies are complicit.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2020
I don't understand why this is such a popular quote in this thread when it was made by a no-name IP editor.
From what I understand, it isn't about consensus, it's about providing what they deem reliable sources. Hell, they have a whole list on what they consider reliable and why. I've seen entire articles deleted because all the sources had a consensus, but those sources were deemed unreliable (usually India News Today or The Daily Mail)
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
1: It perfectly encapsulates the nature of Wikipedia to worship their "reliable sources" when it has been shown they will literally change the definition of reliable on a whim and the very skewed definition of "reliable" they have
2: A named wikipedo, who far from being some random but in fact was a veteran of Wikipedia for over a decade when that quote was made, follows up on a user pointing out the retardation of this logic by doubling down. "Yes we would have insisted the earth is flat if that was the Scientific Consensus
" (interesting how he adds scientific here, not noticing the article isn't about science at all and thus not really comparable)3: It's a great meme