Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

View attachment 2327289
This was 100% necessary on a page about the creator of a children's cartoon

I have no idea why anyone who isn't a political figure or a notable activist like Jane Fonda would need a giant section on their political views. But that's Wiki editors for you.

I have a paper communist encyclopedia from the 1980s and it's slightly less skewed than Wikipedia. For example, when looking up medieval German nobles, it doesn't list all the times Marx called them fat pigs (and he called them fat pigs a lot).

If it's the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, that's considered by scholars an extremely good source for almost anything involving Russia or the USSR, with most of the deliberately skewed stuff relating to Soviet political figures and government agencies in the years 1917 - 1953 and the expected stuff about how the USSR/communist world is so great and how well the Soviet system works. Of course, if you read between the lines, you get a fascinating example of how Soviet academics and elites perceived their society and how it worked much as how reading Wikipedia articles on politics and current events give you an interesting look into the minds of modern progressive globalist liberals and other far-left types. Wikipedia might even be better at this than the Great Soviet Encyclopedia since the talk pages and other community pages has editors rationalizing and enforcing their decisions on the community.

It would be very interesting to have an easily searchable website that compiled the entirety of Wikipedia at annual/bi-annual intervals, which would be useful to see how the website--and its editors--evolved. Wikipedia itself has almost all of this in the history tab of each article, but that's a pain to search and sometimes interesting content in there is removed from the public view by the jannies (oversight tool). It would be possible to statistically analyze these editions and track the leftward drift of Wikipedia on a graph. For instance, searching any random social justice-related term is fascinating since the articles rapidly expand and categories rapidly grow with new articles over the course of the past decade. Unfortunately, real journalism is mostly dead which limits the pool of people with the skills and time necessary for this, but I have no doubt it would be parallel to the graphs showing how terms like "racism" and "trans rights" explode in the early 10s in all the mainstream media publications (i.e. New York Times).

 

[George Lucas]

So on that note, does anyone know of an alternative to Wikipedia (or an active proposal to build one) that doesn't suffer from WP's (dare I say it) institutional bias? Even just one that covers the controversial topics? Because at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any. (Inb4 'Conservapedia', because that site is pure autism.) And given Wikipedia's longstanding issues, I'd be surprised if no one's used the Creative Commons licence to fork them.

The best way to get both breadth and depth of knowledge on a particular subject is by consulting bibliographies, which are found in the backs of books and all over the web. They're just lists of books on a particular subject. The best bibliographies are made by a true expert on the subject and includes brief descriptions. The bibliography in Hollander's English translation of The Poetic Edda is a good example. You can then either read the books or just read a summary on the book depending on the depth of information you're interested in, and of course those books may have bibliographies themselves.

For anything recent (within the past year or so), it's best just to consult primary sources.

 

[Sparkling Yuzu]

 

[Oats12345]

View attachment 2327289
This was 100% necessary on a page about the creator of a children's cartoon

lol those are literally the political views of a child.... Sterile, faux-edgy "anti-authoritarianism" that threatens absolutely no one in power. "Trolling" voter fraud hotlines? Shitlibs are the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.

And again, similar to Culkin, him doing that as a “joke” - low-hanging fruit, but kinda funny (late and gay, but they tried)

the fact that it’s appeared in 3 different articles should be an embarrassment to everyone involved, however.

You should see DC Douglas wikipedia. For some reason his political views are very detailed compare to other dub voice actors who don't even have that much detailed pages yet Douglas is over detailed? Either he did it himself or a big fan did

 

[DoubleD]

You should see DC Douglas wikipedia. For some reason his political views are very detailed compare to other dub voice actors who don't even have that much detailed pages yet Douglas is over detailed? Either he did it himself or a big fan did

I’m assuming this particular retard got mainstream press coverage for his political views while the other ones weren’t so lucky.

Wikipedia prefers its citations to come from “reputable“ news sources, assuming there isn’t like an academic paper or official document that states it more definitively.

So, for like 90% of modern stuff that’s too retarded for scientists to study, Wikipedia is basically written by the journos who create articles that Wikipedia then cites. They might not know they’re writing Wikipedia articles (albeit indirectly), but I’d wager quite a few of them do.

 

[Corpun]

Has anyone else noticed how Wiki Images is basically a repository for pornography of various forms? I mean seriously google anything as mundane as boobs or extreme as scat and see what self made shit gets uploaded there?

Also someone is fetishizing an Eldritch abomination. This is some TVTropes shit.


That whole page is very autistic, my favorite bit isn't the homosex between male characters that gets shilled now, but an 'expert' in literature entirely mischaracterizing Eowyn as a girl who wants glory and fame before she is too old too into a stronk female warrior womyn who is forced into being a housewife. Never mind she receives two mortal wounds from her fight with the Witch-King and nearly dies as a result.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

That whole page is very autistic, my favorite bit isn't the homosex between male characters that gets shilled now, but an 'expert' in literature entirely mischaracterizing Eowyn as a girl who wants glory and fame before she is too old too into a stronk female warrior womyn who is forced into being a housewife. Never mind she receives two mortal wounds from her fight with the Witch-King and nearly dies as a result.

That is absolutely all over wikipedia - fringe sociology, especially about things sexual or gay. Everything, down to children's cartoons, will be seen with a sexual subtext.

 

[Corpun]

That is absolutely all over wikipedia - fringe sociology, especially about things sexual or gay. Everything, down to children's cartoons, will be seen with a sexual subtext.

Wikipedia would be a lot better off if they stopped citing literal whos all the fucking time. But hey, these are the same people who think Salon is a legitimate news source.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Wikipedia would be a lot better off if they stopped citing literal whos all the fucking time. But hey, these are the same people who think Salon is a legitimate news source.

Another poster earlier mentioned it would be interesting to see the tone change of Wikipedia over the years, one thing that I think has shifted has been a result of the over-reliance on fringe sociology, especially about marginally notable popculture like random nerd cartoons, has given Wikipedia a TV Tropes like tone at least when it comes to said TV shows/movies. I haven't looked to see if it is literal tropers doing the editing, but I started to notice it a couple of years ago.

Salon as a notable source, but citing the Daily Mail is nearly a bannable offense.

 

[Corpun]

University Chapel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I too love when Wikipedia feels the need to insert social justice sperging into a fucking crypt.

 

[Screw Danlon]

University Chapel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I too love when Wikipedia feels the need to insert social justice sperging into a fucking crypt.

View attachment 2331864

I’d put money that one of his students put that in there because he wasn’t considered notable enough for his own page. There’s no other reason to have a paragraph about this dude‘s CV to explain his comment.

seriously, if you could get rid of the egosearching, the obvious paid shilling, the activism, and the autism, the site would be usable again.

 

[NynchLiggers]

I’d put money that one of his students put that in there because he wasn’t considered notable enough for his own page. There’s no other reason to have a paragraph about this dude‘s CV to explain his comment.

So, basically it is unwarranted self-importance disguised as Social Justice?

 

[Corpun]

I’d put money that one of his students put that in there because he wasn’t considered notable enough for his own page. There’s no other reason to have a paragraph about this dude‘s CV to explain his comment.

seriously, if you could get rid of the egosearching, the obvious paid shilling, the activism, and the autism, the site would be usable again.

That's never gonna happen unless out do a thorough purge to the site. Are there any actually decent alternatives to wikipedia or are other online encyclopedias as pozzed?

 

[BootlegPopeye]

That's never gonna happen unless out do a thorough purge to the site. Are there any actually decent alternatives to wikipedia or are other online encyclopedias as pozzed?

No. A couple pages ago, I said what you'd have to do to make a good one would be a hostile takeover of Britannica (which does have some biographies on its website, but its too meager) and turn it in the anti-Wikipedia.

When I need something factual, I use the public domain encyclopedias, ie the older Britannicas, but also some other specialist ones like the Catholic Encyclopedia. Anything newer than those, you really have to read primary sources or some scholarly biographies, where you are less likely to get stupid wiki-takes on the subject.

 

[Shaka Brah]

So, basically it is unwarranted self-importance disguised as Social Justice?

He's the chair of a race studies program. Unwarranted self-importance is the basis for his tenure.

 

[Jagraveen]

Trannies win again.

Vivian (Paper Mario) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Holy fucking shit was there no need to make an entire article for this character just for the sole reason that he's "trans" (something he's not explicitly referred to as in the Japanese version, where he's instead described as / implied to be an "Otokonoko", which pretty much means femboy and not straight-out trans).

 

[DoubleD]

Another poster earlier mentioned it would be interesting to see the tone change of Wikipedia over the years, one thing that I think has shifted has been a result of the over-reliance on fringe sociology, especially about marginally notable popculture like random nerd cartoons, has given Wikipedia a TV Tropes like tone at least when it comes to said TV shows/movies. I haven't looked to see if it is literal tropers doing the editing, but I started to notice it a couple of years ago.

Salon as a notable source, but citing the Daily Mail is nearly a bannable offense.

One thing to note is that Wikipedia has only started deprecating entire sources in the last few years, beginning with the Daily Mail in 2017, and every other deprecation was from 2018 or later.

Spoiler: A long list of deprecated sources and their dates

Breitbart, The Daily Caller and Infowars are all on there, along with some less obvious choices like China Global Television, Sputnik News, The Sun (another UK rag), and user-submitted music databases. Note that they specify this list is non-exhaustive.

They were likely already doing this informally, but only recently have they started making it official. Now attempting to cite one of these sources will (in most cases) trigger a spam filter, which reverts the edit for new and unregistered users, and for everyone else displays a warning and flags up the edit for human revision. Explanation below:

 

[Adolphin]

One thing to note is that Wikipedia has only started deprecating entire sources in the last few years, beginning with the Daily Mail in 2017, and every other deprecation was from 2018 or later.

Spoiler: A long list of deprecated sources and their dates

View attachment 2332855

Breitbart, The Daily Caller and Infowars are all on there, along with some less obvious choices like China Global Television, Sputnik News, The Sun (another UK rag), and user-submitted music databases. Note that they specify this list is non-exhaustive.

They were likely already doing this informally, but only recently have they started making it official. Now attempting to cite one of these sources will (in most cases) trigger a spam filter, which reverts the edit for new and unregistered users, and for everyone else displays a warning and flags up the edit for human revision. Explanation below:

View attachment 2332861

If they want to ban "propaganda outlets", they should ban all mainstream news as well, since it is mostly propaganda with a "democratic coating". Gross hypocrisy.

 

[DoubleD]

If they want to ban "propaganda outlets", they should ban all mainstream news as well, since it mostly propaganda with a "democratic coating". Gross hypocrisy.

There is an even longer list mentioning which sources are good to use, which ones are bad, and which are somewhere in between.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Interestingly they say The Mary Sue is usable for its opinion pieces, while they also say that Fox News is okay for anything but its opinion pieces, politics, or coverage of science.

They also suck the dicks of ADL, SPLC (even though they ackowledge that it's biased), not to mention the "impartial" fact checkers.

To be fair, they also have blanket bans on Reddit, Twitter, Urban Dictionary, and pretty much anything with user-generated content. I wonder if the sam would apply when any of the so-called "reliable" sources take social media hearsay ("OmG NEEEEAR is dEAD, yOU GUISE!") and publish it as fact. Just a thought.

Another thing I noticed is that the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper in Hong Kong is given a caution rating.

 

[Massively Strong Greed]

Holy fucking shit was there no need to make an entire article for this character just for the sole reason that he's "trans" (something he's not explicitly referred to as in the Japanese version, where he's instead described as / implied to be an "Otokonoko", which pretty much means femboy and not straight-out trans).

This one was posted earlier in the thread but it bears repeating.

Flea (Chrono Trigger) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org