- Joined
- Nov 17, 2019
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2021
I knew the article was written by Molly White before I even clicked it.This one. It was solely made for exactly what you think.Nicholas Lim (entrepreneur) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2022
I think you'll find that was mostly peaceful violence.
Wikipedia seems to have shifted in policy in recent times from "use reliable sources to justify the truth" to "use 'reliable' sources, even if they're bullshit". So you can't e.g. give a nuanced summary of the Byuu debacle, because that's not what USA Today says. And given the sorry state of American journalism...
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2022
Lucille Bluth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2019
The whole pronouns and deadnames of Wikipedia pages who become troons or non-binary seems exhausting to deal with. A user couldn't get the obvious hint that "Demi" is a common nickname for "Demetria" and argued that its a "deadname" because Lovato came as non-binary (she has since stopped identifying as non-binary iirc).
But the discussion on what pronouns Lovato should be referred to was... what you'd expect to see whenever gender is mentioned on sites like Wikipedia/Tumblr/Reddit/Twitter and so on.
But the discussion on what pronouns Lovato should be referred to was... what you'd expect to see whenever gender is mentioned on sites like Wikipedia/Tumblr/Reddit/Twitter and so on.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
I think she still identifies as such, but she went to she/they as opposed to they/them. I don't know how she expects to be taken seriously by anyone outside the troon community when flip-flopping on what she wants to be called.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Just blatant dishonesty on the wiki page for Couchcuck's shooting:
This is a complete mischaracterization of the SPLC page that is cited:
Who made this change? Our old Hawaiian pal of course:
This is a complete mischaracterization of the SPLC page that is cited:
Who made this change? Our old Hawaiian pal of course:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
Found a funny story contained within a single article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Five_(2020_TV_series)
For context, Party of Five was a 90s drama series about a family of five children from a family that became orphans after their parents died in a car accident. Twenty years later, they rebooted it, and lol what do you expect it to be about? Seriously, take a guess as to what they did.
So, naturally, critics loved it:
But then people who aren't a bunch of terminally online raging retards watched it, and:
Oopsie! Gone after one season, never to return.
For context, Party of Five was a 90s drama series about a family of five children from a family that became orphans after their parents died in a car accident. Twenty years later, they rebooted it, and lol what do you expect it to be about? Seriously, take a guess as to what they did.
But then people who aren't a bunch of terminally online raging retards watched it, and:
Oopsie! Gone after one season, never to return.
Molly White's Breast Milk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
Samuel Hyde
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2022
I was browsing Hackaday[0] recently and found a link to an amazing article[1] containing an interview with Wikipedia hoaxer. Apparently Wikipedia claimed Alan MacMasters was the inventor of the electric toaster[2] for nearly 10 years. The problem is that Alan isn't real, the photo of him is pretty obviously not taken from the era he claimed to live, and even better is that patent for the real invention is publicly available on Google's patent search[3].
But wait, there's more. Because Wikipedia has become the information repository for over-educated normies, lots of different materials[4] have cited this Wikipedia article. There are even a few books on the subject according to the wikipediocracy article. It looks like Google Arts & Culture used the Wikipedia errata as well going off of this information based on brave-search's cached search results.
Sorry if someone else beat me to this. I looked at the posts for August and I couldn't find anyone who mentioned this.
[0] https://hackaday.com/2022/11/23/dont-believe-everything-you-read-the-great-electric-toaster-hoax/
[1] https://wikipediocracy.com/2022/08/11/wikipedias-credibility-is-toast/
[2] https://archive.ph/IL2ay
[3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US1037932?oq=Electric+Toaster+Frank+Shailor
[4] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-was-the-toaster-invented.html
[5] https://archive.ph/bEhpr
I can't exhaustively find every instance where people cited Wikipedia or used their article without citing it, but my God it really does look like nobody today does any original research.
www.outlived.org
www.hagley.org
www.mirror.co.uk
madeupinbritain.uk
www.businessinsider.com
But wait, there's more. Because Wikipedia has become the information repository for over-educated normies, lots of different materials[4] have cited this Wikipedia article. There are even a few books on the subject according to the wikipediocracy article. It looks like Google Arts & Culture used the Wikipedia errata as well going off of this information based on brave-search's cached search results.
Sorry if someone else beat me to this. I looked at the posts for August and I couldn't find anyone who mentioned this.
[0] https://hackaday.com/2022/11/23/dont-believe-everything-you-read-the-great-electric-toaster-hoax/
[1] https://wikipediocracy.com/2022/08/11/wikipedias-credibility-is-toast/
[2] https://archive.ph/IL2ay
[3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US1037932?oq=Electric+Toaster+Frank+Shailor
[4] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-was-the-toaster-invented.html
[5] https://archive.ph/bEhpr
I can't exhaustively find every instance where people cited Wikipedia or used their article without citing it, but my God it really does look like nobody today does any original research.
Alan MacMasters (1865-1927)
Alan MacMasters, Scottish scientist, was born in 1865 and died in 1927
www.outlived.org
The History of Making Toast
Toast is a quick and easy breakfast that can be eaten on the go, but it wasn’t always so. Before the development of the electric toaster, hand sliced bread had to be toasted on a long metal fork or in a metal frame held over a fire, or on a gas stove. Simple utensils for toasting bread over open...
www.hagley.org
Made in the UK: The life-changing everyday innovations which put British genius on the map
A poll this week revealed that half of us do not realise that British inventors were behind the jet engine, world wide web and TV
www.mirror.co.uk
Made up in Britain: Electric Toaster : Alan MacMasters 1893
49 Wonderful Gifts That Scotland Gave To The World
Without Scotland, we might not have deep fried Mars bars.
www.businessinsider.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It's literally against the rules to do that. So that actual patent doesn't even matter. The fact that the claim is completely false doesn't matter. Only if some press mongoloid who can't even refrain from shitting his own pants writes a fake news story about it is it real.
Otherwise the "reliable sources" quoting the dumb bullshit from wikipedia itself are the only citable sources.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
There is a list of such incidents:
en.wikipedia.org
The list does not include cases where Wikipedia puts feebly-supported smears against right-leaning people and groups, and lazy reporters repeat it. That outcome is a feature not a bug.
Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - Wikipedia
The list does not include cases where Wikipedia puts feebly-supported smears against right-leaning people and groups, and lazy reporters repeat it. That outcome is a feature not a bug.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2022
Anyone ever see the user X-Editor? They popup on pretty much all the political articles you would expect from Trump to mass killings by communists. Nothing really stands out about them, just another sperg I felt like mentioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ns/X-Editor&target=X-Editor&offset=&limit=500
The one thing I did find interesting is they seem to be running interference for Taylor Lorenz to clean up her Wikipedia page from criticism. They entirely removed the portion of the article covering her lying about the Drudge report harassing her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1110512785&oldid=1110512691
And on top of that, they have left Wikipedia, returned to Wikipedia, then left again citing "stress" but then immediately come back. The seem to be very unstable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ns/X-Editor&target=X-Editor&offset=&limit=500
The one thing I did find interesting is they seem to be running interference for Taylor Lorenz to clean up her Wikipedia page from criticism. They entirely removed the portion of the article covering her lying about the Drudge report harassing her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1110512785&oldid=1110512691
And on top of that, they have left Wikipedia, returned to Wikipedia, then left again citing "stress" but then immediately come back. The seem to be very unstable.
Attachments
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
In the rare W for Wikipedia they don't have an article on Alejandro Caraballo troon not-lawyer extraordinaire, which makes sense given her utter irrelevance:
en.wikipedia.org
Alejandra Caraballo - Wikipedia
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
No article on him, but still way too many hits, implying his opinions are worth mentioning. Most citations seem to be about the Boston Children's Hospital and their grooming operations. The article on the hospital relies on misdirection, focusing on one mistaken criticism, and using positive-sounding buzzwords such as "gender-affirming care" to sugarcoat what they do.In the rare W for Wikipedia they don't have an article on Alejandro Caraballo troon not-lawyer extraordinaire, which makes sense given her utter irrelevance:
Alejandra Caraballo - Wikipedia
Our troon's quote:
Do they even believe their own lies? It's not "hatred of trans people" but anger over children being conditioned and mutilated by ideological, profit-hungry medical workers. This quote similarly misses the point:
I don't see a single line even acknowledging that there might be some sensible concerns about transing kids.
For those needing reminder, it is normal to be enraged by this she-demon and her sickening glee and manipulation:
One last quote from the article:
I have a different opinion than the fat black lawyer about what these "health care providers" deserve.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2022
Libs of Tiktok is a terrorist, Wikipedia says so, so I guess its true. No different from ISIS.
The user who edited the bit has other interesting edits:
"Tim Pool's endorsement of the Colorado nightclub shooting", so now the norwooding hapa is White supremacist-nazi-Y'all Qaida-terrorist member as well.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
Why does this article, with 138 footnotes, need to exist?
en.wikipedia.org
Rowling is not a politician, she's not running for office, she's not a political writer or pundit. She is famous for writing children's books. Why do her ditzy opinions need to be so exhaustively documented?
Political views of J. K. Rowling - Wikipedia
Rowling is not a politician, she's not running for office, she's not a political writer or pundit. She is famous for writing children's books. Why do her ditzy opinions need to be so exhaustively documented?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2019
Because they’re the wrong ones obviouslyWhy does this article, with 138 footnotes, need to exist?
View attachment 3963672View attachment 3963672
View attachment 3963672
Political views of J. K. Rowling - Wikipedia
Rowling is not a politician, she's not running for office, she's not a political writer or pundit. She is famous for writing children's books. Why do her ditzy opinions need to be so exhaustively documented?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
Holy shit, I just looked at the LoTT article. I had noticed before that it was negative, but now Wikipedia has gone full-on partisan attack.
Here's a snapshot from April:
Libs of TikTok - Wikipedia
Not too bad, actually quite factual. Here's one from August:
Libs of TikTok - Wikipedia
Still relatively factual. The account is conservative, it uses derogatory commentary, all true. Some have accused it of promoting harassment, also true. The final sentence uses Wikipedia's favored "pointed out" phrasing to agree with the misinformation/hateful part, but overall it's not too bad and shows both sides.
Here's what it is now:
Far-right (of course), disinformation, promoting harassment against children's hospitals and so on (no context that it's only certain teachers, etc., who are being criticized, because of their own actions and words). False claims and hateful commentary against marginalized groups. Slurs.
And as noted above there is a section on the Colorado shooting, which LoTT had absolutely nothing to do with. The logic is that you must never criticize any of these groups, because someone somewhere might do something violent in response to your criticism.
Will even a normie read this article and seriously believe that it's a neutral source about this topic?
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2019
Forgot the part where Chaya Raichik doxxed and killed millions of trannies.Here's what it is now:
Far-right (of course), disinformation, promoting harassment against children's hospitals and so on (no context that it's only certain teachers, etc., who are being criticized, because of their own actions and words). False claims and hateful commentary against marginalized groups. Slurs.
