- Joined
- Feb 5, 2021
Crosspost from the Ukraine thread.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
No I mean legit nigger talk, man, get some fuckin EBONICS up in this shit, bitch!
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripple_Creek,_Colorado is a city in Colorado. Impressive, very nice. Let's see the talk page:
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
The Muslim sperging over the Muhammad article that was mentioned here a few days ago reminded me of a very old incident, but I had to do some spelunking to recover the details. It revolved around the Quran article, and this photo:
That's the highest quality image I could find in the Internet Archive.
The picture is of a page from an old giant edition of the Quran displayed at the Smithsonian. Having a person standing next to it serves to illustrate how large it is.
This image generated rage from Muslims about how a woman and her bare arm is in the same frame of a photograph as a page from a copy of their precious Quran. Many words and long edit wars ensued. Here's an example rant:
ETA: Here's a more succinct request:
Two massive talk archives (including a poll) are devoted to this controversy:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
The counterargument is the usual: Wikipedia is not censored, and illustrating the size has encyclopedic value.
The argument also veered into feminism, with one active combatant deliriously blaming this on "men" rather than Islam:
She might really believe this crap, but she also probably knew that "Sheesh, MUSLIMS" would not be well-received.
The photographer eventually showed up and said the woman is his wife and they're both upset to have caused offense and would like to remove the photo. Debate then ensued on photo takebacks. He tried to end the controversy by using admin powers to delete the image, which spawned a short-lived RfC:
en.wikipedia.org
Excerpt:
Ultimately, a new version of the photo was submitted with the woman cropped out, with the justification of "privacy", which unlike censorship is considered a valid reason to remove an image. Better images were eventually used for the article.
The cropped image still exists on Wikipedia, but has not been in use for many years.
That's the highest quality image I could find in the Internet Archive.
The picture is of a page from an old giant edition of the Quran displayed at the Smithsonian. Having a person standing next to it serves to illustrate how large it is.
This image generated rage from Muslims about how a woman and her bare arm is in the same frame of a photograph as a page from a copy of their precious Quran. Many words and long edit wars ensued. Here's an example rant:
ETA: Here's a more succinct request:
Two massive talk archives (including a poll) are devoted to this controversy:
Talk:Quran/Picture Controversy/Archive - Wikipedia
Talk:Quran/Picture Controversy - Wikipedia
The counterargument is the usual: Wikipedia is not censored, and illustrating the size has encyclopedic value.
The argument also veered into feminism, with one active combatant deliriously blaming this on "men" rather than Islam:
She might really believe this crap, but she also probably knew that "Sheesh, MUSLIMS" would not be well-received.
The photographer eventually showed up and said the woman is his wife and they're both upset to have caused offense and would like to remove the photo. Debate then ensued on photo takebacks. He tried to end the controversy by using admin powers to delete the image, which spawned a short-lived RfC:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quadell - Wikipedia
Ultimately, a new version of the photo was submitted with the woman cropped out, with the justification of "privacy", which unlike censorship is considered a valid reason to remove an image. Better images were eventually used for the article.
The cropped image still exists on Wikipedia, but has not been in use for many years.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
+2 internets for aishwarya rai reference. A woman so pretty she looks like she was AI generated.The argument also veered into feminism, with one active combatant deliriously blaming this on "men" rather than Islam:
She might really believe this crap, but she also probably knew that "Sheesh, MUSLIMS" would not be well-received.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
This is the shit I come to this thread for.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Fuck Islams.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2023
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2021
Internet Muslim rants have convinced me of all the religion to ever exist, wahhabis/similar Islamic sects are the most autistic.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Yeah I went into Enthiran for the hot robot action... and stayed for the copy/paste of Aishwarya... (timestamped for you)
Well a lot of them are inbred.
Inbreeding in Islam: Over 70% Of Muslims Are The Product of Incest — Steemit
It should not be alarming that the respectability of the Islamic ethical system has been severely questioned in both… by squawker.org
Lucille Bluth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2019
It's been already stated, but it seems like Flynt / Wu has actively suppressed this information. And unless he actually confirms being a tranny Wiki users don't give a shit.
Both the talk page and main article are blue locked. The lock appears to have occurred in 2015/2016. Now only no life losers who spend an exceptional amount of time on Wikipedia can edit the talk page or main article. So you'd have to be willing to go the extra step just to troll one page. I see some crossed out edits in the talk page, but you can't click and view them.
Speaking of people not being listed in any LGBT categories, former actress and sex cult worker Allison Mack, despite being married to a woman is not listed under any LGBT categories either. And her wife, Nicki Clyne is also not listed under any LGBT categories either.
Nicki Clyne - Wikipedia
Allison Mack - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Wikipedia has two Belorussian-language sites. One is written with the language's official orthography, and the other uses an orthography mostly associated with the Belorussian diaspora and enemies of the Belorussian government. Is that a glow I see?
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
Yeah it's pretty werid. Unlike Brianna they don't hide the fact that they were together. But they don't have them listed on LGBT category is strange. Is Kevin Spacey listed on that category or not as well? I'm carious now?It's been already stated, but it seems like Flynt / Wu has actively suppressed this information. And unless he actually confirms being a tranny Wiki users don't give a shit.
Both the talk page and main article are blue locked. The lock appears to have occurred in 2015/2016. Now only no life losers who spend an exceptional amount of time on Wikipedia can edit the talk page or main article. So you'd have to be willing to go the extra step just to troll one page. I see some crossed out edits in the talk page, but you can't click and view them.
Speaking of people not being listed in any LGBT categories, former actress and sex cult worker Allison Mack, despite being married to a woman is not listed under any LGBT categories either. And her wife, Nicki Clyne is also not listed under any LGBT categories either.
Nicki Clyne - Wikipedia
Allison Mack - Wikipedia
View attachment 4780620
View attachment 4780622
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2020
A brand new account was indefinitely blocked ( temporary link; will eventually be archived on Wikipedia ) for using an image from the CWCki and being part of a "long-running trolling campaign".
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
Wow they cannot even tolerate the showing of a image that originated here even if it has nothing wrong with it. I can absolutely see some mildly spergy normie who wants to help, does some google-fu to try and find a image for a article ending up on the farms, and posting it there without any malice or even being aware of what it is.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
Wikipedia's habit of editorializing by adding "falsely" all over articles is sometimes amusing:
en.wikipedia.org
Thanks, Wikipedia, for helpfully informing me that John Proctor was not actually a witch!
John Proctor (Salem witch trials) - Wikipedia
Thanks, Wikipedia, for helpfully informing me that John Proctor was not actually a witch!
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
I got reminded of this seeing news about them in another thread, but the popular Disclose.tv news aggregator website has a wikipedia article that is just one long attack against it seething about how it is disinformation, misinformation, malinformation and probably russian too.
en.wikipedia.org
It has all the telltale signs of a smear and attacks. It begins by dropping the far-right and fake-news thought killing right off the bat. Then it complains that the website started out as a "conspiracy theory forum" to discuss things before they "re-branded in 2012". It then bitches about how they are doing all the no-no news topics. It further attacks it by then going for a nuclear option when it comes to smearing the fuck out of a German: accusing them of hosting "holocaust denial and neonazi content" on their discord and telegram (note the working: hosting, not spreading it. It is a complaint about people talking about it on the social media Disclose owns not not Disclose itself). It further on attacks them for having spread fake news with some examples of stuff they published in the past that was wrong, but notably they never mention if corrections were issued and for such a dangerous website it is quite a small list. Finally it ends off bitching about the fact the teutons that write for it use good OpSec and write under fake names with fake AI Generated images as their thumbnail photos (likely because they know if they did it on the open they would have already been arrested by the Stasi).
The real
moment comes when you actually take a step back from the article to look into the way it was written and history of it. It was created recently. VERY recently. Despite Disclose.tv being a pretty well known alternative news aggregator for a good while (going back to 2012 remember? And they have been a pretty big name since around 2019 on the circles where this stuff is popular) the article was only created on late October 2022. It was biased as you would expect of a wikipedia article on a news source that isn't kosher but it wasn't that bad... And then over the course of about two weeks it had a bunch of edits adjusting it. One anonymous editor trolled wikipedia calling them out and it was reverted for example.
However the main battle has to do with, of course, sourcing and the wikipedos arguing over it and what counts and what doesn't. Notabily there is also a constant battle between ones who want to try and at least pretend wikipedia is still neutral and ones who really want it to let you know Disclose.tv is Lugenpressen in no uncertain terms. Eventually one editor simply asks that the entire thing be thrown into the garbage. It does not happen, and the article is denied the sweet release of death to continue it's horrendous existence.
Another round of edit wars takes place on the afternoon of November 11th. Again between trying to be neutral and upholding The Consensus
. To no one's surprise The Consensus wins and asks a powerjanny to make the page protected so they don't have to keep protecting The Consensus. Finally on the 23rd the page has the last big change and arrives at pretty much the final result we see today.
And through all of that, the main source for literally all of the claims of the site as a fake-news conspiracy theory alt-right very bad not good come from the same source who published multiple articles and "studies" about how Disclose is bad. Logically.
You can trust them! Look at how many friends they have and how broad they have had their stuff published!
It's quite the blatant hit job against Disclose. Some wikipedos even called out how suspicious it was that the article was created and nominated to be featured within a literal week. The talk page has quite a few baffled editors on the level of the hit job as even the wikipedos can't quite take how blatant the slant is causing a minor moment of self awareness. One points out that ZeroHedge is a far older website of a similar style and it doesn't have a page as absurdly one sided and badly sourced against it. No replies were forthcoming as it seems the bigger fish of the wikipond just moved on and no one cared to keep asking.
Disclose.tv - Wikipedia
It has all the telltale signs of a smear and attacks. It begins by dropping the far-right and fake-news thought killing right off the bat. Then it complains that the website started out as a "conspiracy theory forum" to discuss things before they "re-branded in 2012". It then bitches about how they are doing all the no-no news topics. It further attacks it by then going for a nuclear option when it comes to smearing the fuck out of a German: accusing them of hosting "holocaust denial and neonazi content" on their discord and telegram (note the working: hosting, not spreading it. It is a complaint about people talking about it on the social media Disclose owns not not Disclose itself). It further on attacks them for having spread fake news with some examples of stuff they published in the past that was wrong, but notably they never mention if corrections were issued and for such a dangerous website it is quite a small list. Finally it ends off bitching about the fact the teutons that write for it use good OpSec and write under fake names with fake AI Generated images as their thumbnail photos (likely because they know if they did it on the open they would have already been arrested by the Stasi).
The real
moment comes when you actually take a step back from the article to look into the way it was written and history of it. It was created recently. VERY recently. Despite Disclose.tv being a pretty well known alternative news aggregator for a good while (going back to 2012 remember? And they have been a pretty big name since around 2019 on the circles where this stuff is popular) the article was only created on late October 2022. It was biased as you would expect of a wikipedia article on a news source that isn't kosher but it wasn't that bad... And then over the course of about two weeks it had a bunch of edits adjusting it. One anonymous editor trolled wikipedia calling them out and it was reverted for example.However the main battle has to do with, of course, sourcing and the wikipedos arguing over it and what counts and what doesn't. Notabily there is also a constant battle between ones who want to try and at least pretend wikipedia is still neutral and ones who really want it to let you know Disclose.tv is Lugenpressen in no uncertain terms. Eventually one editor simply asks that the entire thing be thrown into the garbage. It does not happen, and the article is denied the sweet release of death to continue it's horrendous existence.
Another round of edit wars takes place on the afternoon of November 11th. Again between trying to be neutral and upholding The Consensus
. To no one's surprise The Consensus wins and asks a powerjanny to make the page protected so they don't have to keep protecting The Consensus. Finally on the 23rd the page has the last big change and arrives at pretty much the final result we see today.And through all of that, the main source for literally all of the claims of the site as a fake-news conspiracy theory alt-right very bad not good come from the same source who published multiple articles and "studies" about how Disclose is bad. Logically.
You can trust them! Look at how many friends they have and how broad they have had their stuff published!
It's quite the blatant hit job against Disclose. Some wikipedos even called out how suspicious it was that the article was created and nominated to be featured within a literal week. The talk page has quite a few baffled editors on the level of the hit job as even the wikipedos can't quite take how blatant the slant is causing a minor moment of self awareness. One points out that ZeroHedge is a far older website of a similar style and it doesn't have a page as absurdly one sided and badly sourced against it. No replies were forthcoming as it seems the bigger fish of the wikipond just moved on and no one cared to keep asking.
Dan Schneider
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2022
I mean, this is actually weird. They were banned for adding an image and asking why it was removed? They cited "WP:NOTHERE" as the ban reason but they were obviously contributing. I really wonder how this is even remotely allowed. If it's CWC related at all, it's just an instant ban now with no consideration of context?
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2023
Yet another example of Wikipedia simping / white knighting for retarded females.
Link
Long story short: this dumb whore faked her own kidnapping in a similar style to that of Jussie Smolett (she really wanted the attention) and everything even down to the tactics she claimed the supposed "kidnappers" used are dubious at best and laughable at worst when you actually actively look into this case (even a person involved in the ploy admits himself it was all fake). The story she gives can effectively be summed up as the script for a very bad drama film, it's borderline unbelievable. Wikipedia on the other hand just comes to her rescue with the damsel-in-distress treatment, stating she was (without reasonable doubt) kidnapped and it was a horror beyond comprehension.
Also all edits shown in the pages history where editors reasonably changed wordings to say "allegedly" or similar are always reverted with barely any explanation given, besides occasionally given the argument that she wasn't formally charged with fraud (as if thats any real reason to say that it happened without a shadow of a doubt)
Link
Long story short: this dumb whore faked her own kidnapping in a similar style to that of Jussie Smolett (she really wanted the attention) and everything even down to the tactics she claimed the supposed "kidnappers" used are dubious at best and laughable at worst when you actually actively look into this case (even a person involved in the ploy admits himself it was all fake). The story she gives can effectively be summed up as the script for a very bad drama film, it's borderline unbelievable. Wikipedia on the other hand just comes to her rescue with the damsel-in-distress treatment, stating she was (without reasonable doubt) kidnapped and it was a horror beyond comprehension.
Also all edits shown in the pages history where editors reasonably changed wordings to say "allegedly" or similar are always reverted with barely any explanation given, besides occasionally given the argument that she wasn't formally charged with fraud (as if thats any real reason to say that it happened without a shadow of a doubt)
Last edited: