Dumb Shit on Wikipedia


Nothing boils my blood more than reading up on post-WW2 German monument reconstruction.
The arch was originally dedicated to the glory of the Bavarian army (Dem Bayerischen Heere). Today, the Siegestor is a monument and reminder to peace. After sustaining heavy damage in World War II it was to be demolished in July 1945,[1] however, the arch was reconstructed and restored only partially,[4] in a manner similar to the conservation of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche in Berlin. The new inscription on the back side by Wilhelm Hausenstein reads Dem Sieg geweiht, vom Krieg zerstört, zum Frieden mahnend, "Dedicated to victory, destroyed by war, urging peace". In the early 21st century, the remaining statues were meticulously cleaned and restored.
Click to expand...
I swear it's like the Germans get a little bit of backbone with this shit and then have to cuck out the last minute. Why even reconstruct it if you leave the top of the arch totally bare?
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Kiwi & Cow, Sexy Peach Emoji and 8 others
Tootsie Bear said:
I Don't Know Her
This was featured on Wikipedia's homepage. Just when you thought you seen it all, Wikipedia says our site can be worse!

Click to expand...
A literal fucking gif gets an entire Wikipedia page that gets featured but mentioning that Chris Chan is the most notable person from Ruckersville (This is objectively a true statement he is the most famous person in modern history if not all history from Ruckersville) is NO NO BAD!!!!!! I almost forgot Ruckersville is extended protected the same level of editing protection they use for fucking Israel.
RIFCLERS.PNG
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Yuuri and Chito, Flaming Insignias, Surfherder and 14 others
Tootsie Bear said:
I Don't Know Her
This was featured on Wikipedia's homepage. Just when you thought you seen it all, Wikipedia says our site can be worse!

Click to expand...
Wikipedia simply deny things exist because of the notability principle, yet this nothing is notable for some reason...

I guess enough gay blogs wrote about it. Wikipedia is really biased with how they are weighting sources anyway. If they agree with it, a random blogpost is enough. If they don't agree with it, give me 20 academic papers, so I know who I need to discredit on the site to make your position null and void.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Grug, Flaming Insignias, Vecr and 11 others
Blamo2000 said:
If they agree with it, a random blogpost is enough. If they don't agree with it, give me 20 academic papers, so I know who I need to discredit on the site to make your position null and void.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Their claims of "notability" "trustworthy sources" and "fact checking" are all just fig leaves for the control of the narrative.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, JJLiautaud, Vecr and 10 others
Sicko Hunter said:
A literal fucking gif gets an entire Wikipedia page that gets featured but mentioning that Chris Chan is the most notable person from Ruckersville (This is objectively a true statement he is the most famous person in modern history if not all history from Ruckersville) is NO NO BAD!!!!!! I almost forgot Ruckersville is extended protected the same level of editing protection they use for fucking Israel.
View attachment 5527041
Click to expand...
Blockheaded freak Dong Gone Jones is directly involved in censoring the existence of Chris Chan on Wikipedia:

donggone6.PNG

donggone8.PNG

Funny how Chris really was the prototype for troons:

wiki.PNG

lmao

wiki2.PNG
 
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: Rome's rightful successor, Da Capo, Flaming Insignias and 12 others
There's an article Views of Elon Musk. It's what you'd expect, documenting all occasions when he's burped out some tweet or statement that goes against the woke mainstream, with section titles such as "Conspiracy theories" and "Race and white nationalism" and "Women in technology" classifying all his offenses.

But what stuck out is how repetitively the article pounds away at its obsessions. Here's a paragraph, which as usual typifies Wikipedia's rhetoric and conclusion drawing:
muskw1.png

Did you know Musk supported white nationalist ideology on November 15? And also that, on November 15, he supported white nationalist ideology?

Apparently this double up isn't enough, since later the whole incident is summarized again, albeit with a different focus:
muskw2.png


As if that's not enough, the article also includes the full text of the tweets in question in the article. While this seems yet more redundant and a primary source, it's actually better than Wikipedia or the media's frequent policy of reporting that someone said something horrible but never telling you what it is so you can judge for yourself.
 
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Da Capo, Flaming Insignias, Coo Coo Bird and 13 others
Corpun said:
I wonder if Wikipedos unironically think the more citations a sentence has the more true it is.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you quote 10 lying liars with no credibility, what they say is now true, especially if they're Narrative-Approved "Reliable Sources." Whether they're reliable or not depends on whether they unswervingly agree with you about absolutely everything to the most minute detail.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Fathomless Eminence, Vecr and 2 others
The reason why the media is so desperate to smear Elon as a white nationalist is they can't control his speech so they have to delegitimize him by tying him with an extremist ideology. On Twitter Elon can say and discuss what he wants freely and that is a leftists worst nightmare. Their ideology requires heavy censorship and deplatforming to exist because their "arguments" are often totally nonsensical emotionally charged garbage. When Elon Musk is allowed to reply to a tweet about white supremacy being the largest danger to America with hard FBI data on black crime that terrifies them because they can't refute it.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Rome's rightful successor, Flaming Insignias, Super Dilator Duel 3D and 12 others
General Emílio Médici said:
100%

They would hide on behind the "if so many different sources agree it must be true" or such other falacy.
Click to expand...
It's the contemporary equivalent of "where there's smoke, there's fire". Of course, this requires that you ignore the existence of smoke machines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Vecr, UnsufficentBoobage and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back