- Joined
- Apr 4, 2020
When Patrick was asking if Mayonnaise was an instrument, he was obviously asking if gay fleshlights were sexually satisfying.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2017
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2019
Ahh, "arguably erotic intensity." Brings me back to the Clinton administration.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
Turks have been a pain in the ass on the Internet ever since the Usenet days. (Serdar Argic)
Lucille Bluth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2019
Never understood why mods say that recording a notable/public figures dating history is "non-notable" unless they get married/have children or have relationship/legal issues. Considering a lot of the other useless facts that make their way onto wiki pages.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
They probably have detailed entries on the dating histories of anime characters.
teacupteacup
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2020
Wakko Warner
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 20, 2018
That reminds me of that one article that said that kids shouldn't watch this video called We Are Family because it featured SpongeBob and promoted homosexuality. The same article also said it was inappropiate because Winnie the Pooh didn't wear any pants.
NerdShamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
Cishet ace and terf didn't make the list, according to the talk page. In fact, cishet is a slur against normies.
Lucille Bluth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2019
I guess it depends on how notable the person is, because as usual, Wikipedia always has exceptions and they don't bother editing out certain details on the page if no one gives a shit.
Also, I can't believe Wikipedia has the audacity to make this kind of claim, as if they're not cucked already:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Reality is literally a slur if you're a fake gender.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
Yup Wikipedia Assumes Good Faith -- until some ultra-special snowflake claims his feelings is hurt, in which case you're guillotined without even a mock trial.
Unsmug Anime Avatar
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2020
For the record, this citation was about something insignificant, but it is still entirely unacceptable. I might have some others laying around somewhere.
Large
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2018
Nguyen Van Phuoc
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
That edit seems to be vandalism. Here's what else that recent edit adds:
(still funny though)
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
Fascinating, one of the few citations less credible than "dude trust me".
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
Wikipedia seems to be getting crazier with Mega Clown World 2020.
First they claimed that to doubt the bat soup narrative and believe the lab explanation is a "conspiracy theory". Now they seem to be doubting there was any fraud in the election at all.
2020 is the final nail in the coffin for any doubt that Wikipedia is a less than reliable source - at least when it comes to stuff that isn't "neutral" (like the history of toasters or something).
First they claimed that to doubt the bat soup narrative and believe the lab explanation is a "conspiracy theory". Now they seem to be doubting there was any fraud in the election at all.
2020 is the final nail in the coffin for any doubt that Wikipedia is a less than reliable source - at least when it comes to stuff that isn't "neutral" (like the history of toasters or something).
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
It was never really considered one to start with. I was told not to use it for school history lessons in the early 2010s.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
Yeah, but as I said, 2020 removed any remaining doubt.
It sucks too. Wikipedia is easier to use than other online encyclopedias AFAIK. Especially if other online encyclopedias have crap like paywalls or other limited access BS - or only have short blurbs on everything. And yet Wikipedia is infested with "wokethink" and other political agendas. Not to mention trolling.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
I've only ever really noticed "woke" stuff on a few contemporary politics articles. The bigger issue is just general lack of reliability.