Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Someone actually watched The Devil's Rejects and then said this:
Screenshot 2021-12-30 211948.png

No citation of course. It's just some idiot's personal and absolutely wrong opinion. That shit NEVER happened.
 
I found this whack job
link to his site and Twitter
he was subject to a massive debunking
 
No citation of course. It's just some idiot's personal and absolutely wrong opinion. That shit NEVER happened.
If anything, I’ve noticed it a lot more this year when random people that have greater social media presence than actual media presence as a whole use unverified sources as legitimate sources. And the funny thing is, is that posters like that one really think it holds weight as if they‘re these “experts” in things like this.

I might be late on this, but there’s really many cases of things like this happening on Wikipedia. If they spent all this time trying to figure out between real and fake users posting up citations that may or may not be false, then they really would not need to ask more donations to “improve” their site.
 
I found this whack job
link to his site and Twitter
he was subject to a massive debunking
Abramson is completely unhinged. I also don't know how the hell he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.
 
Abramson is completely unhinged. I also don't know how the hell he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.
He did spread Conspiracism about russiagate which in turn lead to racism towards people of Slavic origins just go ask Keith olbermann who in one tweet just came out as xenophobic towards them
 
Sometime in the past week the article for Dawn of the Black Hearts, the bootleg album of black metal pioneers Mayhem infamous for bearing a picture of their vocalist's corpse, has been deleted. It now redirects to the band's discography page.

As far as I can tell, the reason was that hosting bootlegged material (both the recording and the cover art) contravenes copyright law somehow.
SirZPthundergod9001.png


This despite the fact that Wikipedia still has articles for other famous bootlegs such as Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moo and Bob Dylan's Great White Wonder.

On the other hand, the Metal Archives, the most extensive heavy metal-related resource on the Internet (and who have their own thread in this very subforum), have explicitly stated that it is the only bootleg allowed its own page on their website due to it being notorious and historically important enough. Obviously the website which once almost deleted Darkthrone (another one of the most influential BM bands ever) for not being notable enough is more knowledgeable as to the importance of underground metal records than a bunch of die-hard metal spergs.

You'd think just documenting the existence of records that the userbase admits meet the criteria for notability would be alright, but apparently not. It's not like they're forced to reproduce the packaging or contents of the album (in fact, a couple of years ago the album art was deleted after being up for over a decade yet the article still remained), they're just cataloging its existence. I guess if the parties who hold the copyright to something refuse to let it be reproduced it's totally alright to let it fall down the memory hole. Just like a real encyclopedia!
 

Attachments

  • mayhem dawn of the black hearts.jpg
    mayhem dawn of the black hearts.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 159
Sometime in the past week the article for Dawn of the Black Hearts, the bootleg album of black metal pioneers Mayhem infamous for bearing a picture of their vocalist's corpse, has been deleted. It now redirects to the band's discography page.

As far as I can tell, the reason was that hosting bootlegged material (both the recording and the cover art) contravenes copyright law somehow.
View attachment 2854427

This despite the fact that Wikipedia still has articles for other famous bootlegs such as Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moo and Bob Dylan's Great White Wonder.

On the other hand, the Metal Archives, the most extensive heavy metal-related resource on the Internet (and who have their own thread in this very subforum), have explicitly stated that it is the only bootleg allowed its own page on their website due to it being notorious and historically important enough. Obviously the website which once almost deleted Darkthrone (another one of the most influential BM bands ever) for not being notable enough is more knowledgeable as to the importance of underground metal records than a bunch of die-hard metal spergs.

You'd think just documenting the existence of records that the userbase admits meet the criteria for notability would be alright, but apparently not. It's not like they're forced to reproduce the packaging or contents of the album (in fact, a couple of years ago the album art was deleted after being up for over a decade yet the article still remained), they're just cataloging its existence. I guess if the parties who hold the copyright to something refuse to let it be reproduced it's totally alright to let it fall down the memory hole. Just like a real encyclopedia!
When I was in high school, even my normie friend who was barely into metal knew about that album because it was so notorious. Even if you can rationalize hosting the cover art on Wikipedia is a copyright violation, you can't rationalize the fact the bootleg is infamous enough it's a notable album, probably more notable than any other Mayhem album (aside from maybe De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas because of the Varg connection) anyway since again, normies know it's the one with the singer's brains on it.
 
Sometime in the past week the article for Dawn of the Black Hearts, the bootleg album of black metal pioneers Mayhem infamous for bearing a picture of their vocalist's corpse, has been deleted. It now redirects to the band's discography page.

As far as I can tell, the reason was that hosting bootlegged material (both the recording and the cover art) contravenes copyright law somehow.
View attachment 2854427

This despite the fact that Wikipedia still has articles for other famous bootlegs such as Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moo and Bob Dylan's Great White Wonder.

On the other hand, the Metal Archives, the most extensive heavy metal-related resource on the Internet (and who have their own thread in this very subforum), have explicitly stated that it is the only bootleg allowed its own page on their website due to it being notorious and historically important enough. Obviously the website which once almost deleted Darkthrone (another one of the most influential BM bands ever) for not being notable enough is more knowledgeable as to the importance of underground metal records than a bunch of die-hard metal spergs.

You'd think just documenting the existence of records that the userbase admits meet the criteria for notability would be alright, but apparently not. It's not like they're forced to reproduce the packaging or contents of the album (in fact, a couple of years ago the album art was deleted after being up for over a decade yet the article still remained), they're just cataloging its existence. I guess if the parties who hold the copyright to something refuse to let it be reproduced it's totally alright to let it fall down the memory hole. Just like a real encyclopedia!
SirZPthundergod instigated a slap fight over this:
1641382513940.png
 
Back