Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Surfin Terf said:
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.
View attachment 1935407


Edit:
LOL
View attachment 1935412
Click to expand...
1613859513863.png

I like this too (from blue whale penis).
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Daughter of Cernunnos, Effluvial Ooze, From The Uncanny Valley and 3 others
There was a user who changed the wording of many female given name articles from being: "[Insert female name here] is a female given name" to "[Insert female name here] is a feminine given name".

Example:

Natalie (given name) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
The page now says: "Natalie is a feminine given name", though a while back it use to say: "Natalie is a female given name".

Oddly enough, I don't see this frequently happening to masculine names and unisex names, and many times both of those facts are left in the ledes of the name articles. This has happened to quite a few girl names, and the users who changed this from what I can tell usually edit things related to trannies and other gender stuff. Although some articles are now using more "gender neutral" wording by merely describing a given name as being "a given name" without any mention of gender.

Is the wording really that triggering to MTF troons and the gender snowflakes that frequent the site? Because I'm not really understanding what's wrong with describing names as being "male" or "female" or "unisex".
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Elim Garak, graywolf88, From The Uncanny Valley and 10 others
Lucille Bluth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, they zealously protect articles about absolute nobodies like Brianna Wu, despite the articles being of near zero quality and being entirely filled with lies about the subject.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Eurasian Lynx, Elim Garak, Effluvial Ooze and 6 others
Surfin Terf said:
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.
Click to expand...
No barnacles? I'm outraged!
btgM0Q-y3f4Zq0eueyAg4mPVtx_7pB9sFvhR0tBHOMs.jpg
 
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Eurasian Lynx, Elim Garak, Daughter of Cernunnos and 7 others
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Elim Garak, From The Uncanny Valley, Shaka Brah and 1 other person
StraightShooter2 said:
Anything GamerGate-related immediately comes to mind based on what I've heard here and there.

And there's no mention of GG-related edits at all in that article.
Click to expand...
There's also no entry about feminism or TERFs, despite there being constant edit warring on the pages of complete nobodies because of their stance on troons or some other social issue.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Sicko Hunter, Daughter of Cernunnos and 4 others
Surfin Terf said:
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.
Click to expand...
No echidna penis article?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Elim Garak and scathefire
I am not sure if anyone else noticed this, or even when it started, but at some point Wikipedia has this odd trait in biographies - not in all but in many - to say the person is the son/daughter of ____ (Mother) and ____ (father) instead of the reverse? For my entire adult life, the practice is to say the father's name first since that is usually where we get our surname from. It's almost like at some point wikipedia started following Jewish custom; ie that women are such sluts you can really only know who your mother is - but I have no idea.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, From The Uncanny Valley, scathefire and 3 others
StraightShooter2 said:
Sorry to necro, but it was discovered that the author of Wikipe-tan (Kasuga) was a loli porn artist, and Wikipedia did nothing about it from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

I did a search in talk pages for Kasuga and Wikipe-tan and I see a discussion from the 'lolicon' article where the then 70+ year old (now dead) Timothy Perper, author of 'Sex Signals: The Biology of Love is going on about how he (no surprise) has no issue with loli.

They have no problem with it because adults don't run the place. It seems like the entire point of half of the contributors is to make sure kids know about every sexual degenerate practice known to man. Always wondered if the site is censored (or better yet, banned) in schools.
 
  • Informative
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Elim Garak, Daughter of Cernunnos, From The Uncanny Valley and 3 others
BootlegPopeye said:
I did a search in talk pages for Kasuga and Wikipe-tan and I see a discussion from the 'lolicon' article where the then 70+ year old (now dead) Timothy Perper, author of 'Sex Signals: The Biology of Love is going on about how he (no surprise) has no issue with loli.

They have no problem with it because adults don't run the place. It seems like the entire point of half of the contributors is to make sure kids know about every sexual degenerate practice known to man. Always wondered if the site is censored (or better yet, banned) in schools.
Click to expand...
The "community" (if you can call it that) is basically a cesspool which enables perverts and NAMBLA-types to spread their perversity. The staff basically has a "hands-off" approach, and the CDA (Communications Decency Act) protects them and other social media websites from being held liable for the actions of their contributors.

If the CDA was repealled or amended, I'd be interested in seeing the blowup that would follow, since this would mean that Wikipedia could be held liable as a publisher off all the smut that weirdos anonymously upload to it.

I'm also wondering how Wikipedia gets away with not having an "you must be 18 or older to view this site" disclaimer given the porn and explicit material it hosts (I always thought that sites which host porn were required by law to have such a disclaimer).
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Eurasian Lynx, Elim Garak, From The Uncanny Valley and 1 other person
StraightShooter2 said:
I'm also wondering how Wikipedia gets away with not having an "you must be 18 or older to view this site" disclaimer given the porn and explicit material it hosts (I always thought that sites which host porn were required by law to have such a disclaimer).
Click to expand...

The (not so good) Wikipedia criticism site Wikipedocracy had a thread years ago of several examples of Wiki hosting hardcore pornography. I swear at some point the article for 'Debbie Does Dallas' had the full film (since it lost copyright protection in the late 70s), but now I can't find that in the edit history.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Sicko Hunter, From The Uncanny Valley and 1 other person
I think Wikipedia gets away with it because the porn/explicit content is nominally for artistic and informative purposes, kind of like a high school anatomy textbook or what's shown in a sex-ed class for teens. Of course, this doesn't really work when Commons is full of nudity, people masturbating, and basically perverts exposing themselves on the internet and some of these images inevitably find their way to the main project.

I don't think any of it should be there. As tasteless as it is, the WikiHow-esque drawn images of sex were about all you needed to properly illustrate a topic like anal sex. Or IIRC they used to have an old painting on the page about anal sex which was Roman Emperor Hadrian buttfucking a slave, which I guess works too. Pretty much every anatomy or sex topic could be illustrated with classical art or those weird drawings instead of exhibitionist shit from perverts.
Large said:
150+ edits user and 500+ edits user susposting

Edit:
Also pretty much everything listed on this disambiguation page is now protected.

Edit2: Apparently wikipedia deletes page history upon page deletion, record of 500+ edits man susposting permanently lost because I did not know that.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia technically does not delete page history, because if the page is ever restored than you can see the page history again. Only the oversight function which certain very high-level admins have can permanently delete page history (IIRC normally oversight is used to delete content that could potentially cause legal issues and I think normally it only hides the content to everyone but those with oversight privileges).
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Daughter of Cernunnos and From The Uncanny Valley
StraightShooter2 said:
The "community" (if you can call it that) is basically a cesspool which enables perverts and NAMBLA-types to spread their perversity. The staff basically has a "hands-off" approach, and the CDA (Communications Decency Act) protects them and other social media websites from being held liable for the actions of their contributors.

If the CDA was repealled or amended, I'd be interested in seeing the blowup that would follow, since this would mean that Wikipedia could be held liable as a publisher off all the smut that weirdos anonymously upload to it.

I'm also wondering how Wikipedia gets away with not having an "you must be 18 or older to view this site" disclaimer given the porn and explicit material it hosts (I always thought that sites which host porn were required by law to have such a disclaimer).
Click to expand...
The CDA also criminalized exactly the opposite, sending or making available obscenity to minors, and it's toothless now due to the 1A, not section 230. Subsequent laws have either been struck down or limited in scope. Porn sites don't necessarily need to verify minors couldn't access their site at all under law, they just do it as part of their (also toothless) terms and conditions to cover their own ass. Since most existing laws applicable to porn on the internet cover commercial activity (transactions) or the privacy of a minor Wikipedia isn't in much danger.

Try going to Playboy's and Hustler's websites. You'll see titties right on the splash page with no age verification needed.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Toolbox, From The Uncanny Valley and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back