Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

  • 🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
Did Wikipedia get a UI makeover?

The contents menu seems to have been given a dedicated column now on the left side. At least on Android.

I reflexively hate any change for the sake of change, though it was annoying to have to always scroll back up to the index.


Screenshot_20230831-002151_Brave.jpg
 
Did Wikipedia get a UI makeover?

The contents menu seems to have been given a dedicated column now on the left side. At least on Android.

I reflexively hate any change for the sake of change, though it was annoying to have to always scroll back up to the index.


View attachment 5305223
Wikipedia switched to the new Vector skin back in January. You missed all the malding (check the inwiki archives for the outrage) back then.
 
There was one Larry Sanger was trying to get off the ground: Citizendium. Real-names only for users and a much more detailed review process that includes scientists checking the articles. Sadly AFAIK it stands mostly abandoned.
Citizendium had the opposite problem--you could get control of any topic by having the right credentials, so you had a bunch of fake doctors on the site shilling homeopathy and other snake oil.
 
You say you use Android. If I recall correctly, the mobile version of the site has always used the Minerva skin, so it might have been a recent default skin change for you. 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: lolcow yoghurt
It's really not hard to show how biased Wikipedia is just look at far left terrorists versus far right terrorists and how they're treated it's weird all the far right there is could also be called revolutionaries
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20.png
    Screenshot_20.png
    26.3 KB · Views: 103
  • Screenshot_21.png
    Screenshot_21.png
    42.7 KB · Views: 102
It's really not hard to show how biased Wikipedia is just look at far left terrorists versus far right terrorists and how they're treated it's weird all the far right there is could also be called revolutionaries
There is a bias but this is a retarded comparison. Go find an actual right-wing revolutionary not Anders fucking Breivik.
 
There is a bias but this is a retarded comparison. Go find an actual right-wing revolutionary not Anders fucking Breivik.

But let's see how they treat the order
In the first few lines they call it a terrorist organization
Narodnaya Volya
Why do they get the nice Monica revolutionary anarchists
But then are called terrorists

Adam Waffen division
It's weird they're called a terrorist organization they should correctly be called a national socialist right-wing revolutionary organization

It's very interesting that the Black Panthers which are a terrorist organization
Are called a black power organization instead of terrorists

I once had a college professor and he got really pissed off at me because I kept pointing out that his definition of terrorism is just particular political organizations he doesn't like personally.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_22.png
    Screenshot_22.png
    20.8 KB · Views: 37
  • Screenshot_23.png
    Screenshot_23.png
    22 KB · Views: 40
  • Screenshot_24.png
    Screenshot_24.png
    31.6 KB · Views: 31
  • Screenshot_25.png
    Screenshot_25.png
    36.4 KB · Views: 39
It's really not hard to show how biased Wikipedia is just look at far left terrorists versus far right terrorists and how they're treated it's weird all the far right there is could also be called revolutionaries
You can also take note that any page reguarding violent terrorist/murder/rape of whites at the hands of blacks they always omit the nigger criminal offender's photos.




 
You can also take note that any page reguarding violent terrorist/murder/rape of whites at the hands of blacks they always omit the nigger criminal offender's photos.
The mainstream media does that, but I hadn't previously noticed the pattern as much on Wikipedia. It's not surprising. Call it another variant of Coulter's Law.

I looked at a few others. There's no photo here (but they do admit to the racial motive):

Or, going back, there's a photo on this one, but it's way down the article, and the racial motive is barely mentioned in the text:

Most won't get coverage on Wikipedia at all, such as this black guy who killed four white people in Georgia a few weeks ago:
longmore.png

 
I once had a college professor and he got really pissed off at me because I kept pointing out that his definition of terrorism is just particular political organizations he doesn't like personally.
Ummm actually conservatard, according to the Biden Administration terrorism is only something that harms the democratic processes of the US, and the government gets to dictate what organizations fit that category now.

Same change in language as with racism to deny blacks are racist towards whites. Now racism is power+predjudice, and we all know blacks are completely powerless and have no sway over broader society.
 
I once had a college professor and he got really pissed off at me because I kept pointing out that his definition of terrorism is just particular political organizations he doesn't like personally.
Unironically the fbi has a really good definition of terrorism: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
They even call the Boston Tea Party as the first act of terrorism in this countries history.
 
Unironically the fbi has a really good definition of terrorism: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
They even call the Boston Tea Party as the first act of terrorism in this countries history.
It honestly disturbs me that the largest law enforcement agency in the country calls one of our foundational protests an act of terrorism, especially since they can't be assed to call BLM or Antifa terrorist groups even as they burn down cities to demand anarchy.
 
It honestly disturbs me that the largest law enforcement agency in the country calls one of our foundational protests an act of terrorism, especially since they can't be assed to call BLM or Antifa terrorist groups even as they burn down cities to demand anarchy.

FBI agents receive their "hate crime and extremist" training from the ADL.

"Everything I don't like is White Supremacy"
 
Unironically the fbi has a really good definition of terrorism: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
They even call the Boston Tea Party as the first act of terrorism in this countries history.
Sounds like the FBI defining itself. One man's terrorist is another mans defender of our democracy though I suppose.
 
Back