Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

They have really let loose with arguably defamatory descriptions of so called 'far-right' people since 2016. Before, wikipedia was famous for its weasel words in trying to describe people they disliked that way; now they do it openly.

Isn't Molyneux an anarcho-capitalist libertarian goofball? I don't follow him, but he was never really right wing unless he has completely flipped in the last 10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Glowing In The Streets, Loose Goose and 1 other person
BootlegPopeye said:
Isn't Molyneux an anarcho-capitalist libertarian goofball? I don't follow him, but he was never really right wing unless he has completely flipped in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
He really went off the deep end after he got deep in the race and IQ content. He was one of the Libertarians who joined the Trump bandwagon in 2016, and transitioned to the far-right. He's always been crazy, but he moved from ancap to white nationalist.

 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Daughter of Cernunnos, Creep3r and 2 others
Corpun said:
Wikipedos list anyone as a far-right buzzword so long as a journs or the ADL does.
Click to expand...

And yet the non-binary author I mentioned a few pages ago isn’t described as anything remotely equivalent to far-left on Wikipedia, despite her faer openly rooting for the fall of western civilisation.

69A3A092-1CC9-441D-8444-42B2D1442454.jpeg
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Elim Garak, Daughter of Cernunnos and 1 other person
somecryptoneet said:
He really went off the deep end after he got deep in the race and IQ content. He was one of the Libertarians who joined the Trump bandwagon in 2016, and transitioned to the far-right. He's always been crazy, but he moved from ancap to white nationalist.

Click to expand...

Without derailing this thread about him (I am sure he has a thread here, but I've never looked for it), I remember him from 06 to maybe 2010 with the bizarre culty program he had with 'de-fooing' (de Family Of Origin) that he was encouraging among his young dumb libertarian followers, some of his fanboys posted on a couple of forums I was member of. Then I did hear he got into Game Theory which I imagine was the start of all this.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Flaming Insignias and Creep3r
Wikipedians are trying to sweep the killing of M'Killa Bryant (archived) under the rug now that it's become pretty clear she was anything but a clear-cut victim of a racist cop.

The debate however is overwhelmingly siding towards Keep.

This is but a selection of their rationales. The AFD entry for the page (archived) has them all.

Delete. As per WP:NOTNEWS. At best this incident (in which a knife-wielding girl was lunging at another who was obv. attempting to flee and supine on the ground) may deserve mention upon Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States.
Click to expand...
Keep — Notable in the context of the 2020–2021 United States racial unrest and the Black Lives Matters movement, not just a routine news story.
Click to expand...

Keep - even though many news reports and lawyers have said it was a justified shooting, the story has gotten enough news attention that it deserves it's own article.
Click to expand...
Delete. Extremely tragic as this case is, based on the released body-camera footage, this is not remotely close to the George Floyd murder case or any of the other cases that, justifiably, have rallied calls for reforms to the US police system.
Click to expand...

So, am I hearing this right? If this were an example of racism, akin to George Floyd, then it would meet Wikipedia's notability standards and be worth keeping. If it's a justified shooting, then it's just another non-notable teenager with a knife and there's nothing to see here!

Guys...

GUYS!

I think Wikipedia might have a selective reporting problem.

Edit: moar
Strong Keep as this is being widely covered as a racially charged police killing and it has been discussed at length by multiple news organizations and by the White House press secretary.
Click to expand...
Delete per GNG, BLP1E, and NOTNEWS. Enough with the knee-jerk creation of articles on non-notable black individuals just because they were killed by police (in this case, a knife-wielding psychopath, meaning the police were actually performing their job duties). Coverage in numerous sources is expected because the media thrives on racial unrest in the US, as it generates clicks and ad revenue.
Click to expand...

That last one is actually kinda based. But I for one would see these as reasons to keep the article. After all, it's notable for the very reason that journos tried so hard to pass it off as white supremacy in the first place when it wasn't. Also it exposed Bree Newsome and Kathy Griffin for the race-baiting frauds that they are.

Luckily it looks like Wikipedia is going to keep it. But whether or not the truth will manage to redpill anyone is another matter.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Elim Garak, Sicko Hunter and 9 others
DoubleD said:
Wikipedians are trying to sweep the killing of M'Killa Bryant (archived) under the rug now that it's become pretty clear she was anything but a clear-cut victim of a racist cop.

The debate however is overwhelmingly siding towards Keep.

This is but a selection of their rationales. The AFD entry for the page (archived) has them all.







So, am I hearing this right? If this were an example of racism, akin to George Floyd, then it would meet Wikipedia's notability standards and be worth keeping. If it's a justified shooting, then it's just another non-notable teenager with a knife and there's nothing to see here!

Guys...

GUYS!

I think Wikipedia might have a selective reporting problem.
Click to expand...
SWEEP MOTHERFUCKER SWEEP
 
Still can't believe there's a whole page dedicated to "resting bitch face":

Also, I love how none of the users seemingly want to fix a bug in the system that isn't allowing extended/auto-confirmed users edits to automatically be accepted on pages with the "pending pages" protection template. Reading the long threads/discussions on their frustration gave me quite a laugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Toolbox, AnOminous and 1 other person
Lucille Bluth said:
Still can't believe there's a whole page dedicated to "resting bitch face":

Also, I love how none of the users seemingly want to fix a bug in the system that isn't allowing extended/auto-confirmed users edits to automatically be accepted on pages with the "pending pages" protection template. Reading the long threads/discussions on their frustration gave me quite a laugh.
Click to expand...
When you chase out all the normies and are left with nothing but deranged troons and people shrieking about goobergrape and acting like it's knowyourmeme, the quality of everything declines drastically.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Elim Garak, Maldavius Figtree, Da Capo and 8 others
BootlegPopeye said:
It seems not even that long ago, Wikipedia had a really high bar before internet memes could be well known enough to deserve having articles. Was this another post-2016 change?

At this point, if a meme gets a wikipedia article it is definitely old and uncool and probably never funny to begin with.
Click to expand...
And of course, completely forgotten and non-notable and doesn't belong in an "encyclopedia."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: No Exit and Toolbox
Daughter of Cernunnos said:
Animal: Sea horse
Description: ululation (female), soft, sensual whisper (male)

List of animal sounds - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
What is the aquatic equivalent of a furry?
AnOminous said:
There's a separate article for every King of the Hill character full of TV Tropes level sperging.
View attachment 2119612
The rest of the article is the same.
Click to expand...
I gotta check Frodo's page for the essay on him being gay.

There is this page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_5th_November which mentions the Polish Border Strip plan... a plan not formally devised until 1917 by Ludendorff and other ultranationalist German figures, not the government.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweet Yuzu and AnOminous
Save the Loli said:
Lame, it doesn't even list Hitler's height, he was only 175cm. As a full 3cm taller, Molyneux is ever more dangerous and deserves that scary description for being slightly less of a manlet.
Click to expand...
If you think Molyneux is dangerous wait until you hear about the 10 foot tall white supremacist islamist known Samir al Haydar.
 
  • Islamic Content
  • Feels
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Maldavius Figtree, Da Capo, Sweet Yuzu and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back