Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Fictional Character]

I hope whoever's in charge of picking wikipedia's featured article is proud of the work they did today.

 

[Wikipedia Scholar]

View attachment 1837073
I can see what you mean by the "MMORPG" part.

(I forgot to respond earlier, pardon me) definitely, but it's not limited to the ridiculous barnstars. to put it briefly, knowing how to game the system is much more important than scholarship. debates on there quickly turn into who's best at using and abusing the policy guidelines in their favor, in order to gatekeep content and gain control over articles.

I think it's useful to crowdsource knowledge when you need a bulk of it, like as the root of your encyclopedia, but you also need to REFINE said knowledge. Which means not doing what Wikipedia does and let a bunch of random internet autists chase off actual scholars or pick and choose which sources are "reliable".

The Essjay controversy is like 15 years old but it's still painfully relevant.

exactly. crowdsourcing did in fact build up a large bulk of content, but this should be the initial phase. once you've got a fleshed-out encyclopedia, then you need to shift from quantity to quality, which Wikipedia never did.

View attachment 1849566
wtf is this art style wikipedia chose

postmodern trash, it fits.

 

[Large]

Something fucked up the search engine description thingy here.

 

[Peace and Harmony]

Spoiler: curry niggers gon curry

Original filename: AngryMarapatti.JPG

 

[Pointless Pedant]

I recently discovered that a local psycho has a pretty detailed article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_rapist

 

[Branchland Count]

From the page for satire:

How does a novel published 20 years before the election of Donald Trump parody his policies, you deranged morons?
Naturally the reference links to an article that has absolutely no mention of David Foster Wallace or Infinite Jest.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

From the page for satire:
View attachment 1919240
How does a novel published 20 years before the election of Donald Trump parody his policies, you deranged morons?
Naturally the reference links to an article that has absolutely no mention of David Foster Wallace or Infinite Jest.

It's more a foresight of the way American politics was heading at the time of writing than a satire of later events.

 

[scathefire]

It's more a foresight of the way American politics was heading at the time of writing than a satire of later events.

But then why did they word it like that? Why didn't they just say "this was a premonition of Donald Trump's campaign"? It might just be a case of really, really bad phrasing.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

But then why did they word it like that? Why didn't they just say "this was a premonition of Donald Trump's campaign"? It might just be a case of really, really bad phrasing.

The novel is satire of how Wallace thought consumerist 1990s society was going, and it turns out he was pretty insightful, but it definitely needs to be rephrased.

 

[Chris_Stuckmann]

Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not much of a history buff, but I know propaganda when I see it. Whoever wrote this article is definitely trying to build up a narrative. For example, this sentence. "The term by which this subjection is commonly designated, the Mongol or Tatar "yoke", suggests terrible oppression, but in reality these nomadic invaders from Mongolia were not such cruel, oppressive taskmasters." Oh, they weren't that bad, and you're wrong for thinking that they were that bad.

Furthermore, the linked merely states the following:
'It has been noted that it was during the period of Mongol domination that "the curve of Russian Western trade climbed steadily", as did its trade with the Orient. See Donald Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, Cambridge University Press, 1996. Page 109.'
Increased trade doesn't imply that a conquest didn't happen. I don't even see how the two follow. At the bare minimum, making such an assertion would require a deeper explanation.

Whoever wrote the article goes on to claim that the Mongol hordes were "extremely tolerant" (press x to doubt) and even cites a Soviet revisionist historian who claims that the invasion never happened at all.
This defense of the Age of Tatar rule occupies three of the four paragraphs that make up the section- the remaining paragraph glosses over Tatar tribute policies and invasions and is relatively incomplete by comparison.

Once again, I'm not a history buff, but this article follows a clear trajectory line that most apologetic propaganda follows. It didn't happen, and if it did it wasn't that bad.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1919925
I'm not much of a history buff, but I know propaganda when I see it. Whoever wrote this article is definitely trying to build up a narrative. For example, this sentence. "The term by which this subjection is commonly designated, the Mongol or Tatar "yoke", suggests terrible oppression, but in reality these nomadic invaders from Mongolia were not such cruel, oppressive taskmasters." Oh, they weren't that bad, and you're wrong for thinking that they were that bad.

Furthermore, the linked merely states the following:
'It has been noted that it was during the period of Mongol domination that "the curve of Russian Western trade climbed steadily", as did its trade with the Orient. See Donald Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, Cambridge University Press, 1996. Page 109.'
Increased trade doesn't imply that a conquest didn't happen. I don't even see how the two follow. At the bare minimum, making such an assertion would require a deeper explanation.

Whoever wrote the article goes on to claim that the Mongol hordes were "extremely tolerant" (press x to doubt) and even cites a Soviet revisionist historian who claims that the invasion never happened at all.
This defense of the Age of Tatar rule occupies three of the four paragraphs that make up the section- the remaining paragraph glosses over Tatar tribute policies and invasions and is relatively incomplete by comparison.

Once again, I'm not a history buff, but this article follows a clear trajectory line that most apologetic propaganda follows. It didn't happen, and if it did it wasn't that bad.

Gumilev was an odd character and definitely shouldn't be taken seriously. Whoever wrote this was either one of his followers or a Tartar.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

From the page for satire:
View attachment 1919240
How does a novel published 20 years before the election of Donald Trump parody his policies, you deranged morons?
Naturally the reference links to an article that has absolutely no mention of David Foster Wallace or Infinite Jest.

You see that quite often on Wikipedia, that is, a 'citation' from a source that when checked doesn't say anything close to what the article claims. The sneakier wikipedians will do this with books that don't have snippets on Google Books so they can't be quickly checked. This was several years ago but I can recall a political article where I just happened to have the somewhat obscure book being referenced and it literally said the exact opposite of what the article was saying.

Sometimes I think this is some dumbass editor rewording something pro or con without actually looking at the source, but leaving in the citation. But usually I think it's out of malice.

 

[AnOminous]

This was several years ago but I can recall a political article where I just happened to have the somewhat obscure book being referenced and it literally said the exact opposite of what the article was saying.

This is my "favorite" of the dumb shit on Wikipedia events. Some of the malicious editors there are smart enough to do this only to books that currently still only exist on paper. Those are the true scumbags who should be exposed and doxed. It absolutely infuriates me this currently effectively fake resource is allowed to be something like an arbiter of reality. Actually, it's kind of terrifying.

Imagine you thought it would be some monolithic entity in some towering structure called the Ministry of Truth that raped reality to death and instead it's a bunch of troons cowering in their basements making up utter bullshit.

Also how the fuck did Britfags get Wikipedia to agree that "aluminium" is how you spell FUCKING ALUMINUM YOU FAGGOT CUCK ISLAND FUCKS. Absolutely nobody else in the world spells it that way. "Aluminium" just say it out loud and you automatically inhale a goddamn dick.

It's ALUMINUM you fucking pricks. How did one dumb island convince the world this was the way to spell it?

 

[Large]

This is my "favorite" of the dumb shit on Wikipedia events. Some of the malicious editors there are smart enough to do this only to books that currently still only exist on paper. Those are the true scumbags who should be exposed and doxed. It absolutely infuriates me this currently effectively fake resource is allowed to be something like an arbiter of reality. Actually, it's kind of terrifying.

Imagine you thought it would be some monolithic entity in some towering structure called the Ministry of Truth that raped reality to death and instead it's a bunch of troons cowering in their basements making up utter bullshit.

Also how the fuck did Britfags get Wikipedia to agree that "aluminium" is how you spell FUCKING ALUMINUM YOU FAGGOT CUCK ISLAND FUCKS. Absolutely nobody else in the world spells it that way. "Aluminium" just say it out loud and you automatically inhale a goddamn dick.

It's ALUMINUM you fucking pricks. How did one dumb island convince the world this was the way to spell it?

aluminium

 

[Big Brown Schlub]

You see that quite often on Wikipedia, that is, a 'citation' from a source that when checked doesn't say anything close to what the article claims. The sneakier wikipedians will do this with books that don't have snippets on Google Books so they can't be quickly checked. This was several years ago but I can recall a political article where I just happened to have the somewhat obscure book being referenced and it literally said the exact opposite of what the article was saying.

Sometimes I think this is some dumbass editor rewording something pro or con without actually looking at the source, but leaving in the citation. But usually I think it's out of malice.

On the English language Wikipedia I often see this being done to foreign language sources, you'd think they'd only do it with obscure foreign languages, but nah. Sometimes they're brazen enough to use other widely spoken languages like Spanish or German-language sources where if you check the citation either it's the opposite of what the article claims or it's got nothing to do with it. They expect the average user of the site of being both too lazy to check sources and also being filthy EOPs (English-Only Peasants) and sadly they're completely right.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Also how the fuck did Britfags get Wikipedia to agree that "aluminium" is how you spell FUCKING ALUMINUM YOU FAGGOT CUCK ISLAND FUCKS. Absolutely nobody else in the world spells it that way. "Aluminium" just say it out loud and you automatically inhale a goddamn dick.

Supposedly it was a compromise so "sulfur" wouldn't be spelled "sulphur".

 

[Large]

aluminium

alumninium

 

[milk]

Anyone remember the time they wanted to remove the sexual dimorphism article for being right wing propaganda?

 

[scathefire]

Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1919925
I'm not much of a history buff, but I know propaganda when I see it. Whoever wrote this article is definitely trying to build up a narrative. For example, this sentence. "The term by which this subjection is commonly designated, the Mongol or Tatar "yoke", suggests terrible oppression, but in reality these nomadic invaders from Mongolia were not such cruel, oppressive taskmasters." Oh, they weren't that bad, and you're wrong for thinking that they were that bad.

Furthermore, the linked merely states the following:
'It has been noted that it was during the period of Mongol domination that "the curve of Russian Western trade climbed steadily", as did its trade with the Orient. See Donald Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, Cambridge University Press, 1996. Page 109.'
Increased trade doesn't imply that a conquest didn't happen. I don't even see how the two follow. At the bare minimum, making such an assertion would require a deeper explanation.

Whoever wrote the article goes on to claim that the Mongol hordes were "extremely tolerant" (press x to doubt) and even cites a Soviet revisionist historian who claims that the invasion never happened at all.
This defense of the Age of Tatar rule occupies three of the four paragraphs that make up the section- the remaining paragraph glosses over Tatar tribute policies and invasions and is relatively incomplete by comparison.

Once again, I'm not a history buff, but this article follows a clear trajectory line that most apologetic propaganda follows. It didn't happen, and if it did it wasn't that bad.

This reminds me of how people will also run apologetics for the Ottoman Empire. "Uh, b-but it wasn't that oppressive and imperialistic compared to those damn dirty Western empires!!!!" I bet this happens for a lot of other non-white empires and groups of people in general who made a living off of killing and raping.

Anyone remember the time they wanted to remove the sexual dimorphism article for being right wing propaganda?

Really? I haven't heard of that, can you elaborate?

 

[BootlegPopeye]

This reminds me of how people will also run apologetics for the Ottoman Empire. "Uh, b-but it wasn't that oppressive and imperialistic compared to those damn dirty Western empires!!!!" I bet this happens for a lot of other non-white empires and groups of people in general who made a living off of killing and raping.

There was some video clip being passed around on White Nat sites years ago from a IIRC BBC docu where some lib cunt professor called Ottoman slavery a 'beautiful thing'. Many wiki articles have that problem - ie it's obvious that the editor wants to play the part of defense attorney for the subject instead of describing what it was from scholarly sources. Years ago, as an example, I remember the article for Bonnie and Clyde read like a lawyer's brief for why Bonnie ACKSHOOLY wasn't guilty of murder.

Similarly, I noticed that since 2016, Wikipedia has stopped doing the fake reporter 'neutral' and now does the even faker Washington Post style 'neutral' - ie matter of factly stating that X person tells falsehoods and lies (note that it doesn't just apply to Orange Man, who naturally has a whole article devoted to 'veracity of Donald Trump's statements') when it is often hyperbole, rounding up, opinions, etc.

Wikipedia is now so established on the internet and people take it for granted, there is no longer a decent criticism site for it (that I am aware of). Wikipedocracy is full of near lolcow dipshits nearly as bad as the Wiki dumbasses themselves.