Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[milk]

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.

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

it was a long time ago so I don't remember the specifics. Essentially, around this time period, some gender studies course ( not sure which college/university) was giving extra credits for editing wikipedia to have a more feminist slant. The sexual dimorphism article became a target/assignment. Depending on the feminist they either wanted to remove the article entirely, or remove humans from the article because in their mind, the physical differences between men and women are purely due to the "fact" that boys are encouraged to be more physically active than girls, and thus sexist.

 

[Positron]

the physical differences between men and women are purely due to the "fact" that boys are encouraged to be more physically active than girls, and thus sexist.

So if a girl runs around more she will grow a beard?

Feminism not just makes you stupid in general; it makes you more ignorant about the female sex.

 

[scathefire]

it was a long time ago so I don't remember the specifics. Essentially, around this time period, some gender studies course ( not sure which college/university) was giving extra credits for editing wikipedia to have a more feminist slant. The sexual dimorphism article became a target/assignment. Depending on the feminist they either wanted to remove the article entirely, or remove humans from the article because in their mind, the physical differences between men and women are purely due to the "fact" that boys are encouraged to be more physically active than girls, and thus sexist.

Sounds like blatant vandalism, I'm not surprised that it ended up failing in the end. Although, a lot of things that I would personally qualify as "vandalism" are all over wikipedia to this day. I was friends with somebody in grade school who vandalized a wikipedia page about a movie with her own name and the name of her friend in the cast list, and it's still there after maybe around 7 years and many other people editing the article in the interim.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

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.

I find it unlikely that there will be a lot of left wing Ottoman fans because neo-ottomanism is heavily associated with the hard right in Turkey and Azerbaijan. The Turkish left are either Kemalists or commies.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

If I were a college professor, and it were relevant, I'd have an assignment where you take some popular article and quite simply, just go through the statements and the citations supporting them and detail how closely they actually matched, and for extra credit, how well they actually comported with facts.

This would probably end my employment because screeching SJWs would get rather upset by how much bullshit there is on Wikipedia.

This isn't unique to Wikipedia. My favorite resource is the 1968 Britannica I have a physical copy of, and if you hunt down things they cite in it, sometimes you find out they massaged the data a bit to comport with their prejudices. It is rarely as bad as the absolute tripe you find on Wikipedo though, because EB's editors were generally acting under supervision.

A lot is made of the fact that a lot of the OED contributors, as well, were also often lolcows, including the amazingly insane murderer Dr. William Minor, who as one of the most prolific contributors to the dictionary, submitted his entries from the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. Well, the dude was batshit but he was a great lexicologist.

Wikipedia has some of the aspects of both of these projects, but both the OED and EB are among the greatest achievements of humankind. Wikipedia at this point is just a fucking pile of bullshit polluting the intellectual landscape.

If anyone unironically cites Wikipedia they should be castrated and exiled from society. But then that describes most Wikipedos anyway. (And yes I know I cite Wikipedia. The legal parts are still semi-ok, ok?)

 

[Pointless Pedant]

If I were a college professor, and it were relevant, I'd have an assignment where you take some popular article and quite simply, just go through the statements and the citations supporting them and detail how closely they actually matched, and for extra credit, how well they actually comported with facts.

This would probably end my employment because screeching SJWs would get rather upset by how much bullshit there is on Wikipedia.

This isn't unique to Wikipedia. My favorite resource is the 1968 Britannica I have a physical copy of, and if you hunt down things they cite in it, sometimes you find out they massaged the data a bit to comport with their prejudices. It is rarely as bad as the absolute tripe you find on Wikipedo though, because EB's editors were generally acting under supervision.

A lot is made of the fact that a lot of the OED contributors, as well, were also often lolcows, including the amazingly insane murderer Dr. William Minor, who as one of the most prolific contributors to the dictionary, submitted his entries from the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. Well, the dude was batshit but he was a great lexicologist.

Wikipedia has some of the aspects of both of these projects, but both the OED and EB are among the greatest achievements of humankind. Wikipedia at this point is just a fucking pile of bullshit polluting the intellectual landscape.

If anyone unironically cites Wikipedia they should be castrated and exiled from society. But then that describes most Wikipedos anyway. (And yes I know I cite Wikipedia. The legal parts are still semi-ok, ok?)

I've generally noticed that the legal articles tend to still be fairly reasonable for now. I've only ever noticed a lot of lolcow content on sensitive political topics, like troonery.

 

[Whatsup bud?]

If I were a college professor, and it were relevant, I'd have an assignment where you take some popular article and quite simply, just go through the statements and the citations supporting them and detail how closely they actually matched, and for extra credit, how well they actually comported with facts.

This would probably end my employment because screeching SJWs would get rather upset by how much bullshit there is on Wikipedia.

This isn't unique to Wikipedia. My favorite resource is the 1968 Britannica I have a physical copy of, and if you hunt down things they cite in it, sometimes you find out they massaged the data a bit to comport with their prejudices. It is rarely as bad as the absolute tripe you find on Wikipedo though, because EB's editors were generally acting under supervision.

A lot is made of the fact that a lot of the OED contributors, as well, were also often lolcows, including the amazingly insane murderer Dr. William Minor, who as one of the most prolific contributors to the dictionary, submitted his entries from the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. Well, the dude was batshit but he was a great lexicologist.

Wikipedia has some of the aspects of both of these projects, but both the OED and EB are among the greatest achievements of humankind. Wikipedia at this point is just a fucking pile of bullshit polluting the intellectual landscape.

If anyone unironically cites Wikipedia they should be castrated and exiled from society. But then that describes most Wikipedos anyway. (And yes I know I cite Wikipedia. The legal parts are still semi-ok, ok?)

Why would u site wiki when they've got their sources already listed? Thats like something a high schooler writing their first research paper would do

 

[AnOminous]

I've generally noticed that the legal articles tend to still be fairly reasonable for now. I've only ever noticed a lot of lolcow content on sensitive political topics, like troonery.

They don't actually understand legal subjects, and they have Latin and shit in them. And anyone defending themselves from a troon attack has the actual text of the Constitution, which often quite comprehensively devastates their non-arguments which usually amount to screeching REEEEEEE.

Why would u site wiki when they've got their sources already listed? Thats like something a high schooler writing their first research paper would do

People do it all the time. And professors who actually have the balls just to straight up say "cite Wikipedia? get flunked." They get reported for various forms of thoughtcrime.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

They don't actually understand legal subjects, and they have Latin and shit in them. And anyone defending themselves from a troon attack has the actual text of the Constitution, which often quite comprehensively devastates their non-arguments which usually amount to screeching REEEEEEE.


People do it all the time. And professors who actually have the balls just to straight up say "cite Wikipedia? get flunked." They get reported for various forms of thoughtcrime.

I'm surprised to hear that because my secondary school teachers didn't accept Wikipedia citations back in the 2010s.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm surprised to hear that because my secondary school teachers didn't accept Wikipedia citations back in the 2010s.

Things have changed A LOT in a very short period of time.

 

[NerdShamer]

I'm surprised to hear that because my secondary school teachers didn't accept Wikipedia citations back in the 2010s.

One of my high school teachers actually pointed out that citing Wikipedia is a lazy move.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Things have changed A LOT in a very short period of time.

I don't think all the crazy shit that's happened over the last couple of years has anything to do with middle aged academics suddenly accepting Wikipedia as a valid source. It wouldn't be allowed in a scientific paper now either.

 

[Shaka Brah]

I find it unlikely that there will be a lot of left wing Ottoman fans because neo-ottomanism is heavily associated with the hard right in Turkey and Azerbaijan. The Turkish left are either Kemalists or commies.

You'd be surprised how out of touch Western leftists can be with the indigenous political trends of other countries. During the Maidan color revolution in Ukraine you had western libs fellating literal Slavic Neo-Nazis.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

One other thing I think that shits up Wikipedia worse than almost anything is how they have a terrible yard stick for notability - number of Google hits! Which is why we have articles for long forgotten, flash-in-the-pan memes that may have had alot of Google hits in 2013 or earlier. More than 10 years ago, I cited this as one of the best example of the GOOGLE HITS + nerd loser focus of Wikipedia:

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

..without going through the logs, my recollection is that they turned this relatively non notable event (just put a blurb for it on the page for the Correspondents Dinner 06) into a featured article within a few months of it's creation.

But this also bleeds into the (atrocious) contemporary political coverage. There is no dust settling on Wikipedia to see what ends up remaining notable or what is a viral, but ultimately not that important, story. If they wanted a better encyclopedia (they don't), they would disallow the direct usage of newspapers or websites and instead only allow academic secondary sources, which would stop alot of this borderline fan cruft coverage from seeping into the site.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

You'd be surprised how out of touch Western leftists can be with the indigenous political trends of other countries. During the Maidan color revolution in Ukraine you had western libs fellating literal Slavic Neo-Nazis.

Basically everyone in Ukraine is right-wing. Like a lot of eastern countries the left got killed by the fall of communism so liberalism is about as left as it gets and a lot of people are much more conservative than that. There were certainly some fascists among the Ukrainian rebels but they weren't the majority and the Zelensky government is about as liberal as politics gets in that region (which is not like US liberalism since the Overton window is very different).

Erdogan and the Turkish right seem really unpopular among the left here and basically no one except Islamists likes them. My left-wing parents hate them. The online left can get very odd at times, though. Maybe it's more common in places without any significant Turkish immigrant community.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't think all the crazy shit that's happened over the last couple of years has anything to do with middle aged academics suddenly accepting Wikipedia as a valid source. It wouldn't be allowed in a scientific paper now either.

Well, probably more of it has to do with taking philosophical shitposters like Derrida and Foucault seriously. But once you accept that there are no "privileged" sources, i.e. ones you should take more seriously than the opinions of randos, albeit with a critical eye, there is really no reason not to cite Wikipedia, some guy's blog, or any other thing.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Well, probably more of it has to do with taking philosophical shitposters like Derrida and Foucault seriously. But once you accept that there are no "privileged" sources, i.e. ones you should take more seriously than the opinions of randos, albeit with a critical eye, there is really no reason not to cite Wikipedia, some guy's blog, or any other thing.

I wonder if that applies to FBI crime statistics.

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

Aluminium

АЛЮМИНИЙ

 

[Lucille Bluth]

I never understood how being a "autoconfirmed" or "extend autoconfirmed" user worked. I've seen accounts that had over 500 edits and were there for over a month, but certain pages would still not allow their edits to be "automatically accepted", despite what their own guidelines say. And there weren't any conflicting edits that needed reviewing before hand.

One other thing I think that shits up Wikipedia worse than almost anything is how they have a terrible yard stick for notability - number of Google hits! Which is why we have articles for long forgotten, flash-in-the-pan memes that may have had alot of Google hits in 2013 or earlier. More than 10 years ago, I cited this as one of the best example of the GOOGLE HITS + nerd loser focus of Wikipedia:

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

..without going through the logs, my recollection is that they turned this relatively non notable event (just put a blurb for it on the page for the Correspondents Dinner 06) into a featured article within a few months of it's creation.

But this also bleeds into the (atrocious) contemporary political coverage. There is no dust settling on Wikipedia to see what ends up remaining notable or what is a viral, but ultimately not that important, story. If they wanted a better encyclopedia (they don't), they would disallow the direct usage of newspapers or websites and instead only allow academic secondary sources, which would stop alot of this borderline fan cruft coverage from seeping into the site.

Yeah, what they deem relevant and not is weird. They delete other pages of notable people left and right for not being "notable enough", but then have a whole page decided to dresses that Angelina Jolie or Nicole Kidman wore one time in 2004 and 1997 respectively. They don't even have an image of the dress Kidman wore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Marc_Bouwer_dress_of_Angelina_Jolie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartreuse_Dior_dress_of_Nicole_Kidman

I'm not even going to get into the fact that I've been told that Wikipedia images should "technically" have alternate detailed captions for those who are impaired but this is basically a pick and choose scenario because so many images lack such alternate captions,

 

[Surfin Terf]

For some reason the Blue Whale has an entire page dedicated to its penis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale_penis

Other animals that get that honor are humans (obviously), canines (a far shorter page), and daddy longlegs. I can understand why humans get a page, I can understand why daddy longlegs get a page (they have a unique structure), I can even accept that canines get a page. The Blue Whale I do not understand, and apparently most of the people on the talk page don't understand either except for a couple of editors who are single editor posting under different names who is just upset that they can't edit the article to make it more detailed and accurate.

Edit:
LOL