Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Wikipedos are arguing about how there's no evidence this byuu fag is even dead, but they want to rules lawyer to justify accusing the Farms of being super guilty of mega murder anyway.
Wikipedia articles are basically just a summary of other information sources. If media outlets report on Near having killed himself but don't bother mentioning there being no actual proof, it's not on Wikipedia but the outlets failing to vet their information properly.
You could of course make a case for social media being proper sources as well, but have fun creating rules that don't make this a fucking nightmare to properly vet (e.g. at what number of upvotes does a Reddit thread become relevant, when is it shilling, etc.?). Their current rules, basically a whitelist, just simplify this by a lot.
 
Wikipedia articles are basically just a summary of other information sources. If media outlets report on Near having killed himself but don't bother mentioning there being no actual proof, it's not on Wikipedia but the outlets failing to vet their information properly.
This is why Wikipedia is useless. Because you can lie about anything and get it printed in a news source.
 
Wikipedia articles are basically just a summary of other information sources. If media outlets report on Near having killed himself but don't bother mentioning there being no actual proof, it's not on Wikipedia but the outlets failing to vet their information properly.
Yes, we know about their stupid rules and their dreadful, inconsistent application thereof. Do you really think you're adding information to this discussion? This exact problem has been mentioned to death in this thread.
 
They won't ever adopt anything anyone has suggested because as far as they are concerned, they won. Google, DDG, even Brave search has gay little infoboxes with the wiki summary on basically every search result notable enough to have a wiki article. Legitimization of Wikipedia was completed years ago; their place on the internet is solidified. If it's not broken (from their perspective), why fix it?

I really don't hear normie complaints about Wikipedia anymore like i used to in the late aughts, either. There seems to be neither the interest, nor will to dislodge them - I am convinced that they cannot be reformed, and the site must be destroyed.
 
Wikipedia articles are basically just a summary of other information sources. If media outlets report on Near having killed himself but don't bother mentioning there being no actual proof, it's not on Wikipedia but the outlets failing to vet their information properly.
You could of course make a case for social media being proper sources as well, but have fun creating rules that don't make this a fucking nightmare to properly vet (e.g. at what number of upvotes does a Reddit thread become relevant, when is it shilling, etc.?). Their current rules, basically a whitelist, just simplify this by a lot.
Again, this falls under the "original research" ban which is as retarded as is sounds. But despite the fact that people are trying to clone Wikipedia on certain places on the Wikia network, there won't be a true replacement; aside from RationalWiki, which is the exact opposite of an encyclopedia should be.
 
1625346143976.png

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

For context, Detox is basically a meme in the rap community because the album hadn't been released after years of delays - and at this point its cancellation has been known about for years.
 
Wikipedia’s full of Britfags who insist on using British spellings on every article and make articles about foods that are so basic the rest of the world doesn’t even consider them to be a proper dish:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_sandwich_(food)

The Industrial Revolution led to a dependence on low-quality foods lacking fresh fruits and vegetables, with a minimum of spices and flavorings, and filled with an abundance of sugar and fat because that provides you sustenance while being cheap (and also making you into a disgusting, fat loser with shitty teeth). The result is the island full of ugly inbreds we have today.
 
Wikipedia’s full of Britfags who insist on using British spellings on every article and make articles about foods that are so basic the rest of the world doesn’t even consider them to be a proper dish:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_sandwich_(food)

The Industrial Revolution led to a dependence on low-quality foods lacking fresh fruits and vegetables, with a minimum of spices and flavorings, and filled with an abundance of sugar and fat because that provides you sustenance while being cheap (and also making you into a disgusting, fat loser with shitty teeth). The result is the island full of ugly inbreds we have today.
That reminds me of the sad days in elementary school when my mom would say "sorry, we're out of peanut butter until I go to the store next, just gonna pack you a jelly sandwich." I guess it's a good fit for people back in the shitty days of working 16 hours a day 7 days a week for barely enough to feed your family and ending up with missing limbs. Thank god for the kangz who invented peanut butter and made a real meal out of this sorrowful garbage.
 
Minor dumb shit. It's almost shit that it is dumb that it isn't on Wikipedia. As with every vehicle, they have an article on the Jeep Wrangler. This is a vehicle mostly known for its propensity for flipping if you sneeze while driving it.


It contains this line:

"The YJ still had leaf spring suspension similar to that of the CJ – however, the springs were wider, and the first Wrangler sported trackbar suspension links and anti-roll bars for improved handling and safety, making it less easy to flip by untrained or unwary drivers."

So how is this statement remotely intelligible? The article mentions rolling over or flipping nowhere else. So why would it be "less easy to flip" if it weren't already easy to flip? And if one of the main characteristics of the vehicle, as known to normal people, is don't buy this shit because it flips over, why try to hide that fact?

I suppose it could just be terrible writing-by-committee, as wikipedos usually do. I still almost suspect they have shill edits covering up most of this shit, but really incompetent shills, because otherwise, it wouldn't even have the word "flip" in it, even though "Jeep Wrangler" is more or less synonymous with "flip" to normal people.

If you control the "encyclopedia," though, I guess that won't be its legacy. It will be the most unflippable, perfectly reliable vehicle of all time, as said by Suetonius. Or whatever fake historian writes vehicular history.
While this doesn't entirely fit said article has anyone compiled a list of pages that are very obvious ads by companies or institutions? Sometimes it's obvious enough that even wikipedo admins catch on and say something about it in the talk page.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak

For whatever reason Fred Trump's photo was changed to a shitty one from the 40s (I'll get to my guess later). Also there is a paragraph about his alleged arrest in the 20s in relation to a anti-Catholic KKK rally.

The real gem is this spot.
toothbursh.JPG
Yeah, so what? He had a toothbrush mustache in the 30s and 40s like a lot of other people that he grew out in the later decades, which you'd know if they put any photo of him on the page other than a grainy one you find in an archival center. My guess is this is some idiot trying to go "See he's literally Hitler!" especially because his stache being a toothbrush doesn't come up in the blurb.
 

For whatever reason Fred Trump's photo was changed to a shitty one from the 40s (I'll get to my guess later). Also there is a paragraph about his alleged arrest in the 20s in relation to a anti-Catholic KKK rally.

The real gem is this spot.
View attachment 2321485
Yeah, so what? He had a toothbrush mustache in the 30s and 40s like a lot of other people that he grew out in the later decades, which you'd know if they put any photo of him on the page other than a grainy one you find in an archival center. My guess is this is some idiot trying to go "See he's literally Hitler!" especially because his stache being a toothbrush doesn't come up in the blurb.

"Leading to online speculation" how encyclopedic, and I imagine this was over Twitter. I still can't believe as bad as we all thought Wikipedia was in the days of SlimVirgin (now deceased) in the late aughts it could somehow get ten times worse.

They used to have a decent, 1970s picture of him that I think came from the Trump Org's own website. Seems like it would be trivial to get permission for that either way. Fred was probably most well known to New Yorkers in that period anyway, not when he was just another landlord in the 40s.
 
And came across this on his page:
900239DA-6670-4C08-B82F-FEE4E12611AC.jpegBBD5C13D-3410-4BF5-97A6-B48A430F8BFB.jpeg
Anything even vaguely derisive of the eponymous orange man seems to be deserving of at the very least a mention by wikipedos. It's insane how much pure schlock relating to that man can be found scattered across Wikipedia.
They used to have a decent, 1970s picture of him that I think came from the Trump Org's own website. Seems like it would be trivial to get permission for that either way. Fred was probably most well known to New Yorkers in that period anyway, not when he was just another landlord in the 40s.
I'm guessing this is them trying to justify it with their autistic copyrighted photos rule.
 
I still can't believe as bad as we all thought Wikipedia was in the days of SlimVirgin (now deceased) in the late aughts it could somehow get ten times worse.
RIP in piss. Assuming it's not yet another byuu situation. Any actual source with evidence of this death? I find an article on something called genderdesk. Umm, yeah, I'm going to take that seriously.
 
"Moon responded aggressively and mockingly, calling New Zealand a "shithole country",[11][3] and stated that he does not "give a single solitary fuck what section 50 of your faggot law says about sharing your email".[12][13]"
Wikipedia is full of random.txt material.
Dear Wikipedia, I am sorry for ever complaining about you and mocking your fundraising and contributors. The fact that this is on Wikipedia makes it all ok.
 
RIP in piss. Assuming it's not yet another byuu situation. Any actual source with evidence of this death? I find an article on something called genderdesk. Umm, yeah, I'm going to take that seriously.
Real obituary from a funeral home complete with family info, matches everything we know about her:


slimvirgin.png


She faded from prominence well before 2015, so she hasn't been involved with the further devolving of Wikipedia that happened after the 2016 election.
 
Real obituary from a funeral home complete with family info, matches everything we know about her:


View attachment 2323145

She faded from prominence well before 2015, so she hasn't been involved with the further devolving of Wikipedia that happened after the 2016 election.
The buried lede in this story is that her connection with the CIA coverup of the Lockerbie bombing was true, and Jimmy Wales lied about her identity to suppress the story of an agent being a wikipedia admin.
 
Back