Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

discombobulate said:
If the French Wikipedia goes by French copyright law it might be the only image they could use. It can be hard to use photos for which you don't hold the copyright in France, especially for anybody involved in art of some kind. I'd leave it out myself but I get the feeling the other language wikis are even more autistic than the English one.
Click to expand...

I think Wikipedia deliberately punishes people for not giving them free images by using the ugliest nastiest looking piece of shit they can find.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Elim Garak, Nguyen Van Phuoc, moocow and 9 others
AprilRains said:
Absolutely right, and it's even worse than that.

What matters is not what the source is, but who is doing the edit and how it fits the narrative. No source is good enough if they don't like you or they don't like the point they think you're making. Facts? What are those?

They even have an escape clause for pointing out their fucking ridiculous internal inconsistency. It's called WP [colon] OTHERSTUFF, and it means you cannot induce any pattern from existing pages. Unless you're one of the in crowd or you're making the right kind of point. Then it's okay.

In fact, almost every policy on Wikipedia has an equal and opposite policy. Therefore, anything can be justified. And anything is.

If I could contribute money to something that took away money from Wikipedia, I would do that.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry for quoting you again, but one of the more eye rolling/frustrating parts about Wikipedia is that many users basically edit an article and if someone comes along to edit the article and it doesn't fit their narrative, they'll keep reverting the article back. This is especially prevalent with "veteran" and unregistered IP users. And then if you disagree, the first response is to either take the discussion to the talk page, or you're given warnings/bans for petty reasons. Many times people don't even reply in the talk page. So there goes their own policies on "edit wars", but as you said, they have rules and policies to get around their own sites inconsistency.

They claim they're "against" fighting, but most of the "edit wars" usually start out like this, if its not people straight up trolling. But then again, I'm expecting too much from a site that had no problem letting an American who can't speak the language be the primary editor for the Scots wiki.

EDIT: When I edited Wikipedia years ago, there was this one unregistered IP address user who started reverting my edits, claiming I was "vandalizing" the pages because I reverted one of his edits. They wrote some bullshit on my talk page and kept reverting whatever edits I tried changing on a certain page that they were autistic for, saying I should "take it to the talk page".

I also can't say at shocked at how many times I've seen a Wiki users page and seen the same bullshit you'd find on Twitter or Tumblr, like this:
wiki badge.PNG

wiki badge 2.PNG

wiki badge 3.PNG
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: Elim Garak, albert chan, Large and 3 others
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Safir, albert chan and 2 others
Do those trannies, especially male to female trannies, not count as mutilating themselves? Considering how many willingly fuck up their body parts to cosplay as women. But I don't see any mention of that on the page, although they do list "extreme body modification and cosmetic surgery".

Anyways, its always interesting to see Wikipedia provides "sources" and then have the info on the Wiki page straight up contradict everything that the source says. But then users/mods don't give a shit or revert back all edits.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak and UnsufficentBoobage
Yakov Fedotovich Pavlov said:
wikipedia is owned by kikes and run by their drones
Click to expand...
The kikes that run the site always go on about how less than 2% donate and how they need donations to "survive" but they seem to be doing "fine" considering how the site is still online. The site itself on the other hand...

But I guess the site was doomed from the getgo when most of your editors/mods/etc look like this, on top of being controlled by kikes and "liberal" nutjobs:
1601914211975.png1601914435281.png1601914885052.png1601914939558.png
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Elim Garak, albert chan, UnsufficentBoobage and 1 other person
Surfin Terf said:
I don't know why you posted that video, but it does remind me of the fact that for some reason the Wikipedia article on "Nemesis the Warlock" which seems to be a somewhat significant comic series (as far as edgy comic series go) only has a single citation and it's a link to that Youtube video.
Click to expand...

I can’t unsee this when I think of Shriekback since someone posted this:

 
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: moocow, LeChina James and AnOminous
So apparently a fan of an Australian band got to go backstage because he edited the Wikipedia page to say he was a family member and showed it to security.

While the band apparently had a fun time with him, its crazy to think that if this dude was one of those psycho fans that wants to kill the people they idolize the most, the outcome could've been far different...

I'm sure everyone knows this, but I just talked with a former Wikipedia sperg who told me that its widely acknowledged that several sites like Encyclopedia Britannica, The CIA Factbook and other sources cited, like certain books written on a subject are widely proven to be full of shit or untrustworthy garbage but they're still plastered all over many Wikipedia pages as "sources of info". Taking them down depends on if the users who controls the page feel like keeping it up and if it fits the narrative they want to push.

Then there are pages like this, which for some reason are still kept up despite the banner saying no sources have been cited:
unsourced.PNG

Also, I don't know why anyone would want to do this to their vagina, but apparently its done in parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas:

Vaginal steaming - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Vaginal steaming, sometimes shortened to V-steaming,[1] and also known as yoni steaming, is an alternative health treatment whereby a woman squats or sits over steaming water containing herbs such as mugwort, rosemary, wormwood, and basil.
Click to expand...
 
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Blatant hypocrite, Ihascat, Elim Garak and 13 others
Large said:
Donate to Britannica
Click to expand...
I thought I was the only one that lurked on Britannica. From what I can also tell, they don’t seem to be competing too much with Wikipedia either.

Or are some former Wiki editors working for or with Britannica?

:thinking:
 
Lucille Bluth said:
Do those trannies, especially male to female trannies, not count as mutilating themselves? Considering how many willingly fuck up their body parts to cosplay as women. But I don't see any mention of that on the page, although they do list "extreme body modification and cosmetic surgery".

Anyways, its always interesting to see Wikipedia provides "sources" and then have the info on the Wiki page straight up contradict everything that the source says. But then users/mods don't give a shit or revert back all edits.
Click to expand...
It doesn't fit there because it's considered a medical treatment by mental health organisations (despite having zero effect on mental state in the short term, only minor positive mental effects in the long term and causing major mental problems at around 10 years afterwards, as well as the reasons everyone here probably knows already). Repeating dumb bullshit that's mainstream despite being total bullshit is probably just wikipedia's policies working as intended tho.
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage, Lucille Bluth and 1 other person
DoggoLingo

DoggoLingo appends various diminutive suffixes "-o", "-er", "-ino" to existing English words (e.g. dog turns into doggo[2], pup turns into pupper[3]) as well as DoggoLingo words that have been created (e.g. pupper turns into pupperino, bork turns into borker).[4] DoggoLingo relies heavily upon onomatopoeia: Words such as blep, blop and mlem[5] describe the action of a dog sticking out its tongue; bork, boof, woof describe the various canine barking sounds. A dog with a fluffy coat may be called a floof or a fluff. DoggoLingo follows a similar rudimentary style to create its verbs (e.g. doin me a in place of present participles, such as doin me a scare "scaring me") and adjectives (e.g. heckin in place of degree modifiers such as extremely). 'Heck' is frequently used in place of more conventional expletives. Some words also come from eye dialect spellings of English words, such as fren "friend".
Click to expand...

The whole catagory on Internet Slang is cursed
 
  • Horrifying
  • Lunacy
  • Winner
Reactions: Elim Garak, moocow, Safir and 7 others
  • Winner
Reactions: Elim Garak and Bec
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Humpty hump, Safir and 2 others
Large said:
en.wikipedia.org

Sealioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
This isn't just an obvious and extreme example of bias. Maybe it's cultural differences or latent autism, but even after rereading it a few times I still am unsure about what the authors were trying to convey.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of shit that genuinely annoys me on Wikipedia. When exactly did it get so utterly full of shit that it turned into Know Your Meme? Why the fuck are literal memes now Wikipedia article worthy? Remember when this kind of shit used to be deleted? Remember when it was Criteria for Speedy Deletion level?

I'm not kidding, it used to be if you saw absolute garbage like this on Wikipedia, and you flagged it, it would be gone in minutes.

Also the point of that article? Asking for evidence of idiotic claims is, literally, Nazism. That's the point.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Vecr, NeroRisotto and 9 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back