Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

AnOminous said:
It's not even that it has biases. Biases are inescapable. It's that now a critical mass of editors (and the joke of self-governance that is the ArbCom) view it as literally nothing but a propaganda outlet to push their own politics. It's not even concealed at this point. Also probably Sanger's actual article (from back in May) is better than a Breitbart article about the same thing, considering how absurdly biased Breitbart itself is.

Click to expand...
Pointless Pedant said:
I agree Breitbart has its own biases. It's basically anti-Wikipedia ideologically. It's just that both sites are basically on a similar level at this point. Pick your poison, left or right.
Click to expand...
Breitbart never pretends to be anything other than a right wing outlet though. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fucking encyclopedia. As in, just the relevant facts.

1606769264660.png

Someone posted this excerpt on Blacked Alaska's thread, and it belongs here. The man is a total white trash retard, but "lItErAl nEo-NaZi"? Come the fuck on. Sources [1] and [2] are articles by the AV Club and The Atlantic, neither of which is actually any kind of authoritative report on his ideology or association with Neo-Nazis. The AV Club article is just a hit piece that calls him a Nazi, and The Atlantic says he was supposed to be on a press conference as a "white nationalist social media personality" perspective. An appearance he never made, that he probably never agreed to, agreed to under false pretenses, or didn't understand what he was agreeing to because he's a dumb fuck. Wikipedia does this shit all the time with its articles on "Nazis." They're peppered with footnote links to look authoritative but when you actually check them, the articles referenced are either much more ambiguous, or are blatant editorials.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Haffhart, Bethesda's Todd Howard and 13 others
Doctor Placebo said:
Breitbart never pretends to be anything other than a right wing outlet though. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fucking encyclopedia. As in, just the relevant facts.

View attachment 1758448
Someone posted this excerpt on Blacked Alaska's thread, and it belongs here. The man is a total white trash retard, but "lItErAl nEo-NaZi"? Come the fuck on. Sources [1] and [2] are articles by the AV Club and The Atlantic, neither of which is actually any kind of authoritative report on his ideology or association with Neo-Nazis. The AV Club article is just a hit piece that calls him a Nazi, and The Atlantic says he was supposed to be on a press conference as a "white nationalist social media personality" perspective. An appearance he never made, that he probably never agreed to, agreed to under false pretenses, or didn't understand what he was agreeing to because he's a dumb fuck. Wikipedia does this shit all the time with its articles on "Nazis." They're peppered with footnote links to look authoritative but when you actually check them, the articles referenced are either much more ambiguous, or are blatant editorials.
Click to expand...
Yesterday for shits and giggles, I checked article on the evil black scientist Yakub who created the white devils and it says a lot when that article is presented neutrally, but as soon as someone like Blacked Alaska comes along and gets his own page, it soon devolves to overly emotional language about how they're evil and literally Don't Want You To Exist™ with their crazy unfounded conspiracy theories, as proven by this Salon article that quotes twitter user @analbag69420 as one of its top sources. The only part of the Yakub page that indicates that it's a bunch of kooky shit is in the very beginning - "According to the beliefs of the Nation of Islam".
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Ira the Weatherman, Mister Loser and 7 others
elliotpage.png

A little unrelated aside for a second: Look, I don't mind transgender people, nor do I mind non-binary people, but how are you able to be both at the same time?

Topic related: I just like how they almost immediately changed everything about Page to fit the current media cycle surrounding him coming out as transgender.

Not to mention how they changed his info box image to the least feminine photo of him they could possibly find.

before.png

Before
after.png

After
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Something Awful and Beluga
Pickle Dick said:
View attachment 1760621
A little unrelated aside for a second: Look, I don't mind transgender people, nor do I mind non-binary people, but how are you able to be both at the same time?

Topic related: I just like how they almost immediately changed everything about Page to fit the current media cycle surrounding him coming out as transgender.

Not to mention how they changed his info box image to the least feminine photo of him they could possibly find.

View attachment 1760636
Before
View attachment 1760638
After
Click to expand...
Ellen Page trooned out?

Man this shit is getting so ridiculous.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Broseph, Elim Garak, Gigasneed and 1 other person
Pickle Dick said:
View attachment 1760621
A little unrelated aside for a second: Look, I don't mind transgender people, nor do I mind non-binary people, but how are you able to be both at the same time?

Topic related: I just like how they almost immediately changed everything about Page to fit the current media cycle surrounding him coming out as transgender.

Not to mention how they changed his info box image to the least feminine photo of him they could possibly find.

View attachment 1760636
Before
View attachment 1760638
After
Click to expand...
lol she just put a baseball cap on and suddenly she's a man
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Broseph, Elim Garak, Haffhart and 10 others
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Blatant hypocrite, Elim Garak, Haffhart and 15 others
Pickle Dick said:
View attachment 1760621
A little unrelated aside for a second: Look, I don't mind transgender people, nor do I mind non-binary people, but how are you able to be both at the same time?

Topic related: I just like how they almost immediately changed everything about Page to fit the current media cycle surrounding him coming out as transgender.

Not to mention how they changed his info box image to the least feminine photo of him they could possibly find.

View attachment 1760636
Before
View attachment 1760638
After
Click to expand...
The Nova Scotian only looks marginally less feminine in the after picture. Why change it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak
Pickle Dick said:
View attachment 1760621
A little unrelated aside for a second: Look, I don't mind transgender people, nor do I mind non-binary people, but how are you able to be both at the same time?

Topic related: I just like how they almost immediately changed everything about Page to fit the current media cycle surrounding him coming out as transgender.

Not to mention how they changed his info box image to the least feminine photo of him they could possibly find.

View attachment 1760636
Before
View attachment 1760638
After
Click to expand...
A small nitpick, but I saw that someone tried changing her lede paragraph to say that Ellen "came out as a lesbian in February 2014", but that was immediately changed to say "gay woman". And, I believe any further edits changing the wording were considered "distributive editing". I always thought "lesbian" was the proper term, but I guess that doesn't mean anything to Wikipedia.

yoshitsune said:
Yesterday for shits and giggles, I checked article on the evil black scientist Yakub who created the white devils and it says a lot when that article is presented neutrally, but as soon as someone like Blacked Alaska comes along and gets his own page, it soon devolves to overly emotional language about how they're evil and literally Don't Want You To Exist™ with their crazy unfounded conspiracy theories, as proven by this Salon article that quotes twitter user @analbag69420 as one of its top sources. The only part of the Yakub page that indicates that it's a bunch of kooky shit is in the very beginning - "According to the beliefs of the Nation of Islam".
Click to expand...
I still remember seeing an article on Wikipedia cite a source written by a man whose own Wiki page says he's a "right wing, white supremacist, conservative, conspiracy theorist with anti-semitic and anti-immigrant views" or something to that effect, but because his articles contained info that supported whatever views of the Wikipedia mods/users who edit that page, the source was allowed to "stay". I'm sure if his sources were used in other, certain articles, they'd removed it immediately for being "dubious" or "untrustworthy."

I'm sure I've said this before, but when I use to edit Wikipedia in the past (for fun), I noticed many articles riddled with wording that wasn't neutral and other issues, like repetitive wording, info that contradicted other pages or info written down that didn't match up to the sources given. But when I tried editing the grammar/wording/info presented, all the edits to the page were reverted, deemed "disruptive editing" or labelled "unnecessary." All because the cucked mods/users said that the info they put down was "fine". So much for "neutrality" and "facts".
Doctor Placebo said:
They're more concerned with neutrality in articles about cooming techniques than ones about public figures.
Click to expand...
I've seen several articles deleted because the public figure in question was deemed "not important enough", but garbage like that is allowed to stay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Haffhart, Confused Doggo and 10 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back