Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[WhiteNight]

I was able to get a copy of Kevin Veale's book off of Sci-Hub. It's copyrighted so I don't know if I should upload it, but it has to be read to be believed. Mostly it's dozens of pages about Gamergate, obsessing over it while not even getting basic facts right. Throughout, he uses the phrase, "Kiwi Farms harassment community." The usual labels are used with abandon, e.g., "Steve Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos and the other neo-Nazis and white-supremacists." He calls Breitbart an "online harassment blog". He concludes that this is all "grounded in the entitlement and insecurity of cisgender, straight, white men."

Each chapter has an impressively long list of references, but when you pick through them it's mostly anonymous forum posts, Tumblr blogs, and so on. But now it's a "published source" that Wikipedia can cite.

 

[Crex Crex]

So not only absolutely made-up bullshit, but mind-reading on top of that.

"Encyclopedia." Lmao.

Wiki pages on less-known-but-controversial topics have absolutely no quality control. No one cares about this website except for triggered SJWs; so morons like GW could write that Null eats babies and it would stay like that, since no one can be arsed to enforce wikipedia's already lax neutrality standards.

 

[Super Guido]

Wiki pages on less-known-but-controversial topics have absolutely no quality control. No one cares about this website except for triggered SJWs; so morons like GW could write that Null eats babies and it would stay like that, since no one can be arsed to enforce wikipedia's already lax neutrality standards.

It's not that nobody can be arsed - it's that anyone who tries gets in trouble. Brianna Wu isn't trans, guys, I swear!

 

[Lucille Bluth]

Is that a fake nose?

A few days late, but I found it from a YouTube video, as it was EDIT: one of the only images I saw that did not blur out the acronym. It looks like a distortion effect from some picture/video editor.

Talk pages are often a goldmine of drama:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity

15 fucking pages of Balkaniggers fighting about Tesla's ethnicity.

Yes, talk pages are a place for people to sperg out. If there is one thing that will always cause drama, its an individual persons nationality/ethnicity/citizenship and so on.

Regarding ethnicity/citizenship, Wikipedia has guidelines (linked to as "MOS:ETHNICITY" and "MOS:BLPLEAD") that specifically state that an individual's dual/multiple citizenship, ethnic background and so on should not be mentioned unless it is relevant to their notability. This is why, after endless debate, someone like Timothée Chalamet, who is a dual citizen of the United States and France and is ethnically part French through his father, is not described as being "French-American". Due to him being born in and "most notable" in the United States. You'll see similar cases with notable people like Kirsten Dunst (her father is German and is a dual German/American citizen) and so on.

But when it comes to Formula One race car drivers, all of Wikipedia's guidelines seem to go out the window. Following their own guidelines, notable race car drivers like Lance Stroll, Nicholas Latifi and Lando Norris should only be described as being "Canadian" and "British" respectively. As their own rules state that the other citizenship they possess/ethnicity should not be mentioned. Due to them being born in and representing those aforementioned countries nationally. Despite this, their own joke of a user base has fought "hard" to make sure that they are exceptions to Wikipedia's own guidelines. After doing a quick skim on Nicholas Latifi's article, I have not found anything confirming that he even has triple citizenship (or any other citizenship that isn't Canadian), and since Wikipedia users claim that he is "Iranian" (at least partly ethnically, and born in Canada), the Iranian government doesn't actually recognize dual/multiple citizenship.

 

[Wright]

A few days late, but I found it from a YouTube video, as it was the only image I saw that had a complete view of the acronym. It looks like a distortion effect from some picture/video editor.

Yes, talk pages are a place for people to sperg out. If there is one thing that will always cause drama, its an individual person's nationality/ethnicity/citizenship and so on.

Regarding ethnicity/citizenship, Wikipedia has guidelines (linked to as "MOS:ETHNICITY" and "MOS:BLPLEAD") that specifically state that an individual's dual/multiple citizenship, ethnic background and so on should not be mentioned unless it is relevant to their notability. This is why, after endless debate, someone like Timothée Chalamet, who is a dual citizen of the United States and France and is ethnically part French through his father, is not described as being "French-American". Due to him being born in and "most notable" in the United States. You'll see similar cases with notable people like Kirsten Dunst (her father is German and is a dual German/American citizen) and so on.

But when it comes to Formula One race car drivers, all of Wikipedia's guidelines seem to go out the window. Following their own guidelines, notable race car drivers like Lance Stroll, Nicholas Latifi and Lando Norris should only be described as being "Canadian" and "British" respectively. As their own rules state that the other citizenship they possess/ethnicity should not be mentioned. Due to them being born in and representing those aforementioned countries nationally. Despite this, their own joke of a user base has fought "hard" to make sure that they are exceptions to Wikipedia's own guidelines. After doing a quick skim on Nicholas Latifi's article, I have not found anything confirming that he even has triple citizenship (or any other citizenship that isn't Canadian), and since Wikipedia users claim that he is "Iranian" (at least partly ethnically, and born in Canada), the Iranian government doesn't actually recognize dual/multiple citizenship.

F1 fans are autistic, huh. Nothing new to me but at least that confirms it lmao

 

[AnOminous]

Best not to give her a thread unless she's exposed as a kiddie diddler of female sex pest or something.

Agreed. It has the look of bait. On top of that, I'm fine if these idiots continue to smear shit all over Wikipedia. The more it looks like ridiculous garbage, the sooner it will quit being taken seriously, to the extent it even is any more. Obviously, this one dumb article won't do it, but the steady creep of utterly nonsensical crap like this makes it more and more useless every day.

Let the rot dig itself deeper.

 

[Corpun]

List of Syrian submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This wordy title for a random film no one has heard about.

Belligerents in the Syrian civil war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This utterly insane list of factions involved in the war, even if it's a random ethnic militia of like ten guys. The funny shit is seeing various rebels supposedly in alliance accusing each other of killing their leaders.

 

[Boobie Bomb]

Using my Orthodox ways I have a copy of Kevin Veale's book. I don't want to get Null in trouble for hosting the entire thing but here are the pages she cited.

Spoiler: 55, 61, 91

View attachment 2479858View attachment 2479859View attachment 2479860

His citations are utter crap, if you couldn't tell from "lightninggrrl". Ambreen is her wordpress blog. Fogel is here. "lightninggrrl" is a fucking forum post. Pless is a blog post defending Nyberg. "Social Justice Viv" is a broken tumblr. This is just source laundering. These wouldn't be acceptable sources on their own but since they mashed into a book (where they aren't actually appraised for quality) they work for Wikipedia rules. The quality of this source for an article could be challenged and even on WP it might get thrown out. It's straight shit. It isn't really a "secondary source" like WP requires because it doesn't actually treat the sources at all, just parrots the claims.

I'd just post the whole book here for free just to piss on the writer. But I have no money as I used it for other means and I have no time fighting over copyright crap so for now the internet wins this round.

 

[cummytummies]

Someone mentioned Chris Cunningam a few days ago and I had to google him to remind myself who they were talking about.

Well the wikipedia article has scrubbed out any mention of his "dead name" because I guess he's a tranny now. That's real helpful. There appears to be about twenty edits made every day so you can see the autismo squad doing their hardest to sanitize any information. If you check the history tab you can see his real name was listed on the article for about 10 years until it was deemed "not important" a few days ago.

 

[WhiteNight]

I'd just post the whole book here for free just to piss on the writer. But I have no money as I used it for other means and I have no time fighting over copyright crap so for now the internet wins this round.

This is where I found it; click on GET: http://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=61c28daf2607699098cbe3a6f9e85ffc

It might be gone tomorrow though.

 

[Dyn]

Agreed. It has the look of bait. On top of that, I'm fine if these idiots continue to smear shit all over Wikipedia. The more it looks like ridiculous garbage, the sooner it will quit being taken seriously, to the extent it even is any more. Obviously, this one dumb article won't do it, but the steady creep of utterly nonsensical crap like this makes it more and more useless every day.

Let the rot dig itself deeper.

Why hasn't anybody added Josh's nonfunctional penis to wikipedia it's well-documented that he has a broke dick.

 

[NerdShamer]

This is where I found it; click on GET: http://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=61c28daf2607699098cbe3a6f9e85ffc

It might be gone tomorrow though.

Good read.

It's starts off as bludgeon against the hardcore gamer and those who hated that BioWare dev who advocated for skippable gameplay in the same vein as skippable cutscenes. Every gamer is a Nazi dudebro. Anonymity on the internet is bad thing is a recurring topic for most of the book, along with how running an "augmented reality game" or something usually gives people the tools to dox someone. Also lists that 4chan crusade against a guy who was torturing animals as a bad thing. Lists several women who were "traumatized" by GG. Mentioned us, in passing, as one of the perpetrators of harassing Chris.

I'll write the rest tomorrow, but his solution requires a gated community and a call for the users to provide some personally identifying information to the webmasters. Also went on a tangent on how New Zealand was founded by imperialists and that the reforms came too late.

 

[Positron]

Another cow of ours, Naomi "Fake Tits" Wu, has become more notable than Chris.

 

[Hồ Chí Minh]

Wiki pages on less-known-but-controversial topics have absolutely no quality control. No one cares about this website except for triggered SJWs; so morons like GW could write that Null eats babies and it would stay like that, since no one can be arsed to enforce wikipedia's already lax neutrality standards.

The essential problem is that "meritocracy" on Wikipedia often means "most time to spare" and/or "most autistic about something".

Look at all the fights about Stanley Kubrick's infobox. Every single person on Wikipedia has one except the Kubrick article because a bunch of autistic Kubrick fans insist that their article doesn't need one. A normal person spends one or two responses on that, shrugs, and goes off doing something more useful with their lives like wanking to a porn.

Remember Ryulong and his idiotic "buddyroid" translation or whatever it was he kept pushing for years?

Some years ago I added a well-sourced claim from neutral sources about a controversial politician. It was almost immediately edited out with a none-too-friendly edit message. I made a topic on the talk page, and the same ass started accusing me of being part of some hate campaign against that person. Whatever, I don't really care, I just read something somewhere, found some more sources for the claim, and thought it would improve the article.

This was a long time ago, and the last time I tried to edit Wikipedia. Reading the article now, it seems the same claim is in there now, so someone with more time than me managed to get them to stick.

 

[Crex Crex]

The essential problem is that "meritocracy" on Wikipedia often means "most time to spare" and/or "most autistic about something".

Look at all the fights about Stanley Kubrick's infobox. Every single person on Wikipedia has one except the Kubrick article because a bunch of autistic Kubrick fans insist that their article doesn't need one. A normal person spends one or two responses on that, shrugs, and goes off doing something more useful with their lives like wanking to a porn.

Remember Ryulong and his idiotic "buddyroid" translation or whatever it was he kept pushing for years?

Some years ago I added a well-sourced claim from neutral sources about a controversial politician. It was almost immediately edited out with a none-too-friendly edit message. I made a topic on the talk page, and the same ass started accusing me of being part of some hate campaign against that person. Whatever, I don't really care, I just read something somewhere, found some more sources for the claim, and thought it would improve the article.

This was a long time ago, and the last time I tried to edit Wikipedia. Reading the article now, it seems the same claim is in there now, so someone with more time than me managed to get them to stick.

Why do kubrick stans insist on something so stupid? Is their favorite director too "artsy" for a lowly infobox?

 

[Corpun]

Big lie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They actually went ahead and called Trump questioning the election the equivalent of the Stab in the Back, presumably because journos started saying that. Wonder how they'd react if someone added Russia collusion to that article?

To support his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, President Donald Trump and his allies repeatedly and falsely claimed there had been massive election fraud and that Trump had really won the election.[6][7] U.S. Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz subsequently contested the election results in the Senate.[19] Their effort was characterized as "the big lie" by then President-elect Joe Biden: "I think the American public has a real good, clear look at who they are", Biden said two days after the Capitol was attacked. "They're part of the big lie, the big lie."[20] Republican senators Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey, scholars of fascism Timothy Snyder and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Russian affairs expert Fiona Hill, and others also used the term "big lie" to refer to Donald Trump's false claims about massive election fraud.[21] By May 2021, many members of the Republican Party had come to embrace the false narrative and use it as justification to impose new voting restrictions, while Republicans who opposed the narrative faced backlash.[22]

Dominion Voting Systems, which provided voting machines to many jurisdictions in the 2020 election, is seeking $1.3 billion in damages from Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani. In the lawsuit, Dominion alleges that "he and his allies manufactured and disseminated the 'Big Lie', which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election."[23]

In early 2021, The New York Times examined Trump's promotion of "the big lie" for political purposes to subvert the 2020 election, and concluded the lie encouraged the 2021 United States Capitol attack.[8][24]

During the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the house managers Jamie Raskin, Joe Neguse, Joaquin Castro, Stacey Plaskett and Madeleine Dean all used the phrase "the big lie" repeatedly to refer to the notion that the election was stolen, with a total of 16 mentions in the initial presentation alone. "The Big Lie", leading up to and including the election period, formed the first section of the "provocation" part of the argument.[25][26]

In early 2021, several prominent Republicans tried to appropriate the term "the big lie", claiming that it refers to other issues.[27] Trump stated that the term refers to the "Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020".[28] Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich said that "the big lie" is opposition to restrictive new voter ID requirements.[27][29]

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I'll write the rest tomorrow, but his solution requires a gated community and a call for the users to provide some personally identifying information to the webmasters. Also went on a tangent on how New Zealand was founded by imperialists and that the reforms came too late.

Imperialists? Aren't the Maori basically like American blacks in terms of being poor, constantly in prison, and how the ruling class cares about them only for their vote? It wouldn't surprise me if you showed a "best of Kiwifarms" to the average Maori they'd laugh their ass off at all the weird fatasses, schizos, freaks, and troons this site catalogues.

The book's sources are laughable anyway, given Sam Ambreen is a literal schizo who has a thread here. If Wikipedia's "reliable sources" policy wasn't a defacto "left-wing sources only" policy, this trash would be put in the garbage next to someone trying to cite Wehraboo junk or David Irving on World War II articles.

 

[Hồ Chí Minh]

Why do kubrick stans insist on something so stupid? Is their favorite director too "artsy" for a lowly infobox?

"Oversimplifies the career", "unimportant factoids", "seem to pander to the lowest concentration span", bunch of other similar reasons. There's been loads of discussions on it; ArbCom had to get involved, people have been blocked, etc. The original discussion from 2016 is over here; every talk archive page has extensive discussion on it since which generally devolve in to name-calling and similar niceties pretty quickly.

Surely this must have been mentioned in this thread before, as it's a fairly famous example of Wikipedia idiotry. Almost as good as the "Star Trek into Darkness" capitalization drama.

Discussions on it are allowed again starting Sept 2021 though, so probably some next month.

 

[AnOminous]

Whatever, I don't really care, I just read something somewhere, found some more sources for the claim, and thought it would improve the article.

I was once involved tangentially with a fairly big ArbCom war about something (not mentioned by name in any proceedings) and the ultimate resolution, which I found retarded, was just banning the biggest autists on both sides and letting things continue on as they had been. As retarded as this was, it was certainly better than the current model, which is just pick the dumbest side and then ban everyone on the other side, which generally means SJWs get to push delusional bullshit completely unchecked by reality.

 

[NerdShamer]

Good read.

It's starts off as bludgeon against the hardcore gamer and those who hated that BioWare dev who advocated for skippable gameplay in the same vein as skippable cutscenes. Every gamer is a Nazi dudebro. Anonymity on the internet is bad thing is a recurring topic for most of the book, along with how running an "augmented reality game" or something usually gives people the tools to dox someone. Also lists that 4chan crusade against a guy who was torturing animals as a bad thing. Lists several women who were "traumatized" by GG. Mentioned us, in passing, as one of the perpetrators of harassing Chris.

I'll write the rest tomorrow, but his solution requires a gated community and a call for the users to provide some personally identifying information to the webmasters. Also went on a tangent on how New Zealand was founded by imperialists and that the reforms came too late.

Adding onto this, he also cites an Muslim LGBT support forum where new users have to earn enough points to gain access to the more exclusive chatrooms. Said that the trolls aren't willing to spend a lot of energy into climbing the ladder just to get banned, ain't that right @CIA Nigger?

There's an passage on how the internet gave women the means of being stalked when people are smart enough to sift through the evidence. The obligatory whining about Christchurch that I honestly didn't really read. Talks about how the need for accessibility in video games is countered by ableism from the hardcore gamers.

In a nutshell, nearly everything is caused by people being racist or sexist.

Imperialists? Aren't the Maori basically like American blacks in terms of being poor, constantly in prison, and how the ruling class cares about them only for their vote? It wouldn't surprise me if you showed a "best of Kiwifarms" to the average Maori they'd laugh their ass off at all the weird fatasses, schizos, freaks, and troons this site catalogues.

Half of them barely get into high school. They represent nearly half of the prison population. And they have trouble looking for a job because of the dropout to beer-induced vandal pipeline that Wikipedia is shilling.

Somewhere along the lines of this.