Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

I noticed that a while back but never really paid any thought to it as well. I just assumed it was some autistic autobiographical formatting that Wikipedos get caught up in, I didn't think a wikisperg would be making these edits. What their intention is I don't know, but my wager is empowering women sperging.

That's what I can't figure out, the motive. I did find a couple examples of other people doing it - one was a feminist poster who made the reasons in the edit comments that the person in question (I forget who, I was using actors as examples) wasn't 'born' to his father in the sense he came out of his body, so the mother goes first. I also had the thought it might be some Jewish thing, since (according to them) all their women are sluts and you can really only know who your mother is.

There doesn't seem to be a policy I could find on it. Could not find any debate on it - there might be one buried on some talk page I haven't found yet though (that's the way to run things - by nerd slap fight 20 pages deep). It might be that they don't care enough to impose a policy either way, sort of like how some pages will use British or American spellings depending on the subject matter, or BC/AD vs BCE/CE.
 
That's what I can't figure out, the motive. I did find a couple examples of other people doing it - one was a feminist poster who made the reasons in the edit comments that the person in question (I forget who, I was using actors as examples) wasn't 'born' to his father in the sense he came out of his body, so the mother goes first. I also had the thought it might be some Jewish thing, since (according to them) all their women are sluts and you can really only know who your mother is.
Yeah but it can't be a cultural thing because I've seen random soldiers, politicians, and actors articles of various backgrounds where the mother is before the father. I'd assume such a thing would be restricted to a matriarchal society and people raised in those but it isn't. It's just odd, Next time I am on a persual of random dead people on Wikipedia I'll start checking for this more. Another similar trend to this is the mother's maiden name being exclusively used in some articles, for example.

Bob Bobson was the son of Dorothy nee Knickleback and Danny Bobson. He was raised by both his parents in rural Kentucky and grew up in New York when his parents moved there. His mother, Dorothy Knickleback was a teacher at a local highschool and his father was a dentist.

It makes sense to display the mothers maiden name of course, but these instances usually stick to it througout the article. I'd understand it if the mother kept her name on marriage but that is still fairly uncommon today and yet it is prevalent on Wikipedia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BootlegPopeye

Talk page of "Immigration and crime in Germany", you know you're in for some truly radioactive shit. It's too long to write a comprehensive analysis, so I'll just give you a lil taste:

4f7d7033bf44a6c05f1d9b6c51184142.png

NOOOO YOU CANT WRITE BAD THINGS ABOUT HECKIN NIGGERINOS

Huh, who would have such strong opinions against writing about immigrant crim-

fedora.pngfedora2.png

Literal fedora tipping communist. Beyond parody
 
View attachment 2947925View attachment 2947926

Literal fedora tipping communist. Beyond parody

This user is actually a decent microcosm of the 'activist' side of the userbase circa 2007-8 - the fedoraism was really big in the FUCK BUSH days. But you also had more adults still editing Wikipedia at the time who didn't let the inmate get control of the asylum. The POV pushers in that period had more narrow agendas - zionists, etc and there were long debates/fights that prevented it from going over the edge.

After 2016 and after, ahem, certain political event happened, they all lost their minds. The earlier POV pushers were mostly retired or even dead by then, the younger crop were completely raised by the internet and were therefore dumber.
 

Talk page of "Immigration and crime in Germany", you know you're in for some truly radioactive shit. It's too long to write a comprehensive analysis, so I'll just give you a lil taste:

View attachment 2947921

NOOOO YOU CANT WRITE BAD THINGS ABOUT HECKIN NIGGERINOS

Huh, who would have such strong opinions against writing about immigrant crim-

View attachment 2947925View attachment 2947926

Literal fedora tipping communist. Beyond parody
And of course

Screenshot 2022-02-03 at 21-14-23 User Simonm223 - Wikipedia.png
 
When wikiinaction was active on reddit, it covered the change in enforcement and list of reputable outlets from seven years ago. Trump accelerated it substantially.



And then they link another page with the lame cop-out of Karl Popper


Screenshot from 2022-02-03 20-56-47.png


..the problem with this is that this definition is continually fungible based on centrist liberal fashion and mood. We've gotten to the point where verifiable, inarguable biological realities are now intolerant (ie you will never be a woman).
 
And then they link another page with the lame cop-out of Karl Popper


View attachment 2950644

..the problem with this is that this definition is continually fungible based on centrist liberal fashion and mood. We've gotten to the point where verifiable, inarguable biological realities are now intolerant (ie you will never be a woman).
They always gloss over the latter part of the quote, too. It's on the page, but they quickly argue it out if existence.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

He was no fan of suppression of speech. The intolerance of intolerance, in his argument, only begins at the point where fists are being thrown by the intolerant themselves
 
..the problem with this is that this definition is continually fungible based on centrist liberal fashion and mood. We've gotten to the point where verifiable, inarguable biological realities are now intolerant (ie you will never be a woman).
Yes, Popper is using the actual meaning of "intolerant" as in unwillingness to listen to others' views, not the modern-day accusation that you are "intolerant" if you, e.g., disagree with troon logic:

… for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Which ideological movements today are using denunciation, bans, and force to suppress others' rational arguments?
 
Last edited:
Back