Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

I quoted the entire exchange. Someone points out the facts show Wikipedia is wrong, but wikipedia refuses to recognize it and instead insists the "trusted sources" are right.
 
Don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but the image on their page for ReviewBrah is some shitty PS2-looking 3D render. I'm assuming because of their "free image" bullshit, but if the choices were between this and using no image at all, I'd pick no image.
Portrait_of_Josh_from_TheReportOfTheWeek_a.k._Reviewbrah_by_Marquisal.png
 
  • Lunacy
  • Like
  • Late
Reactions: Drama Fan, Corpun, Flaming Insignias and 5 others
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Nguyen Van Phuoc, Flaming Insignias, lolcow yoghurt and 1 other person
TitusOvid said:
According to Wikipedia something is only reliable if corporations pay you to write it. So Taylor Lorenz is reliable but not Jesse Singal or Destiny.
Click to expand...

Singal's book or the articles which he gets published in "real" publications can be cited, but it would be verboten to cite a Substack version of a print article which might be more detailed and informative.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: murph, TitusOvid and Markass the Worst
  • Like
Reactions: Stochastic Terrorist
MarioOfficial said:
This bastard removed the list of every single Garfield book on the official Garfield Wikipedia page.
View attachment 4545477
Click to expand...
The psuedo-millitary medals for wikipedia edits will never not be cringeworthy.

Forget the userboxes, dumb as they are, these guys are turning edit counts into a damn rank system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liquid Hot Smegma, Dolomite, Cascade and 6 others
Identity infoboxes for anything other than stating the editor's nationality and listing what languages they speak and wikiprojects they contribute to should be banned.
Throng of Titans said:
Forget the userboxes, dumb as they are, these guys are turning edit counts into a damn rank system.
Click to expand...
Yes, pretty much every high status editor uses various scripts to patrol recent changes for vandalism or perform useless janitorial services like adding infoboxes to talk pages, and they get treated with some deference by editors who focus on a single topic because they see that this power editor is omnipresent in multiple relevant articles' edit histories and assume he has some level of expertise. If you go up against someone like that on RfC or AfD, you will probably lose.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Liquid Hot Smegma, UnsufficentBoobage, Honeybadger v2 and 3 others
General Emílio Médici said:
I quoted the entire exchange. Someone points out the facts show Wikipedia is wrong, but wikipedia refuses to recognize it and instead insists the "trusted sources" are right.
Click to expand...

I've seen similar from what you've posted, from actual admins, that consensus is more important than truth. But who decides where consensus is drawn from? The "Trusted sources"? I was reading on one wikipedia talk page on one occasion, an admin refuse a source. Not because the source wasn't "trusted" it was. But because they decided that Journalist in particular, wasn't trusted. And what do you know, it didn't align with MSM narrative. What a coincidence.

So really, in the end, wikipedia just makes up the rules as they go. To reinforce establishment narrative.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Stochastic Terrorist and Humbert Humbert
870EVO said:
I've seen similar from what you've posted, from actual admins, that consensus is more important than truth. But who decides where consensus is drawn from? The "Trusted sources"? I was reading on one wikipedia talk page on one occasion, an admin refuse a source. Not because the source wasn't "trusted" it was. But because they decided that Journalist in particular, wasn't trusted. And what do you know, it didn't align with MSM narrative. What a coincidence.

So really, in the end, wikipedia just makes up the rules as they go. To reinforce establishment narrative.
Click to expand...
You can check out their list of "perennial sources" here. Sites like Zerohedge and Grayzone are banned for spreading "conspiracy theories" according to the media figures which they frequently criticize. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which is known for spreading lies and exaggerations, and Voice of America, which is literally owned by the US government, get the green light, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, frozen_runner, Flaming Insignias and 1 other person
This is old news, not "BREAKING", there was a post about this on The Signpost, Wikipedia's internal newsletter. The WF is having Tides manage its donations because this way they don't have to disclose exactly how much money they have, and the editors were largely unhappy about it. The retards in that Twitter thread seem to think that the WF directly controls the site's content.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: lolcow yoghurt, Flaming Insignias, WhiteNight and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back