- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
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.
FloydsFeedandSeed
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2024
I came across a page of a topic I was reading about (subject was nothing to do with gender or anything like that) but there was a reference to male/female, some tranny came across it and changed it to AFAB and AMAB. I had a look and found the changes happened to the page late last year by a tranny. Glad to have reversed them, even though it's a drop in the ocean.
Mudkipcorn
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
This is interesting. It's a real family of dialects, absolutely. A High German (standard modern register) speaker would very much struggle to read that page, I reckon (though I'd say most can parse it a little bit better than they could standard Dutch, and in my experience German speakers' ability to parse Dutch varies wildly based on general linguistic aptitude). A Dutch speaker will be able to understand basically everything, which makes sense as historically Low German is closer to Dutch than High German. Do people in these parts of NL and Germany actually talk like that? I'm sure some do, but I can't imagine anyone writes this way.
On the one hand, easy to mock as ridiculous. On the other hand, I find the preponderance of dialects in Germanic Europe very interesting. And there's no denying that they've rapidly died out since the war. I find that a bit of a shame, so I can understand why some people feel a romantic urge to reverse this process.
Is it legit or is it like Scots wiki? I can't say. Like the old Scots wiki, it's comprehensible to someone who has no exposure to the dialect, but that doesn't mean it isn't 100% machine translation.
Now the most interesting thing to me is looking at the pages for the dialect family in English, Dutch, German, and Dutch Low Saxon itself. Oddly enough, it's the English page which promotes the language more than any of the others. It talks about how it was a victim of the post-war anti-dialectical trend, how some cultural groups have fought back, etc. The map on the English page also shows whole swathes of Germany marked as part of the dialectical area, but the actual text suggests it's more or less entirely confined to the Netherlands in modern times (which seems to be the truth). It's also the only page to mention the dialect family's status as a UNESCO endangered language.
The German page is short and technical. It suggests it's mostly only used in NL (mentions speakers in Germany, but every subgroup brought up is in Dutch territory) and covers the theory that it may have in part been a trade language between the German and Dutch lands in the middle ages. The proper Dutch article is even shorter, with just two paragraphs and a list of subdialects. The page written in Dutch Low Saxon? It's identical to the Dutch version. Not identical as in copy/pasted, but it is a direct translation of the Dutch page. The Andes page, on the other hand, is not a translation of the Dutch page. Even the intro is unique. Could be machine translated from another source though (the fact that machine translation exists for a non-standardized pluricentric dialect grouping is itself rather absurd).
So odd that the most in-depth page, the one which is most pro-Dutch Low Saxon from a dialect revivalist perspective, is the English page. Or maybe that's to be expected. Language people are weird, Wikipedians even more so.
On the one hand, easy to mock as ridiculous. On the other hand, I find the preponderance of dialects in Germanic Europe very interesting. And there's no denying that they've rapidly died out since the war. I find that a bit of a shame, so I can understand why some people feel a romantic urge to reverse this process.
Is it legit or is it like Scots wiki? I can't say. Like the old Scots wiki, it's comprehensible to someone who has no exposure to the dialect, but that doesn't mean it isn't 100% machine translation.
Now the most interesting thing to me is looking at the pages for the dialect family in English, Dutch, German, and Dutch Low Saxon itself. Oddly enough, it's the English page which promotes the language more than any of the others. It talks about how it was a victim of the post-war anti-dialectical trend, how some cultural groups have fought back, etc. The map on the English page also shows whole swathes of Germany marked as part of the dialectical area, but the actual text suggests it's more or less entirely confined to the Netherlands in modern times (which seems to be the truth). It's also the only page to mention the dialect family's status as a UNESCO endangered language.
The German page is short and technical. It suggests it's mostly only used in NL (mentions speakers in Germany, but every subgroup brought up is in Dutch territory) and covers the theory that it may have in part been a trade language between the German and Dutch lands in the middle ages. The proper Dutch article is even shorter, with just two paragraphs and a list of subdialects. The page written in Dutch Low Saxon? It's identical to the Dutch version. Not identical as in copy/pasted, but it is a direct translation of the Dutch page. The Andes page, on the other hand, is not a translation of the Dutch page. Even the intro is unique. Could be machine translated from another source though (the fact that machine translation exists for a non-standardized pluricentric dialect grouping is itself rather absurd).
So odd that the most in-depth page, the one which is most pro-Dutch Low Saxon from a dialect revivalist perspective, is the English page. Or maybe that's to be expected. Language people are weird, Wikipedians even more so.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
Uh, why is a very specific type of penile piercing the #4 most trending article on English Wikipedia? Unless the trending article list on the Wikipedia phone app is inaccurate somehow.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
Thanks, now I have "magic cross piercing" as a fun fact conversation starter.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2021
What is it with Wikipedos' fascination with genital mutilation?
Oh, right. They're trannies.
Oh, right. They're trannies.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
Yes. He is the niggest Pope. More so than the head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
Just another thing that makes planet Earth, planet Earth.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
I looked into it and it turns out people were viewing it due to some weird TikTok trend (archive). Though I have no idea how this stupid thing managed to rival all the normies looking at the pages for recent blockbuster movies.
winderson_silva
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2021
Not really wikipedia related, but I find funny how a ton of people talk "see, death hates racists" because of how he dies. Death in the film explicitly kills people who survive because of the visions because it gets annoyed, he directly talks to a woman and try to buy her by saying "run over this pregnant woman and you will live"
when she asks why all of that, and if that baby who wasnt supposed to exist would bring some disaster, death just say "no, i just dont like it"
So hay, the depraved maniac baby killer hates racism!
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2015
This isn't directly related to Wikipedia but more modern leftism in general but it is a testament to how incapable they are of learning from their past mistakes that instead of you know memory holing and pretending like the Floyd riots didn't happen or maybe downplaying how incredible disastrous that was for the left as a whole they double down on it and still make sure you know it was 5 years ago TODAY Floyd was "murdered". Literal city blocks were burned down for a violent drug addict who was a parasite to the community he was in. Statues were built and he was buried in a solid gold coffin. It was one of the most embarassing moments in modern history and they have zero shame whatsoever about it.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2015
The article on the great Mississippi flood of 1927 uses the journalist "stylistic" choice of lower case letters for white and capitalizing Black. You can almost feel the anger and resentment coming off in these sentences.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
Nigger forgot to capitalize "black labor" on the third line there.
Do Kiwi Farms users know about Alex Sazonov?
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
Nothing. It has nothing to do with Samson.
Steak Tartare
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2025
I have no fucking idea why the tranny menace wants to die on the intersex athlete hill.
talk: Imane Khelif is worth a peek right now
Article Caster Semenya has this interesting first line "was born female" with 2 citations
the 1st says "Assigned female at birth" which by their own clownworld logic does not equal born female
2nd cites Semenya's passport sex and quotes from the mother.
Neither of these two substantiates the claim "was born female." Saying AFAB would actually make more sense.
Article locked, as always
talk: Imane Khelif is worth a peek right now
Article Caster Semenya has this interesting first line "was born female" with 2 citations
the 1st says "Assigned female at birth" which by their own clownworld logic does not equal born female
2nd cites Semenya's passport sex and quotes from the mother.
Neither of these two substantiates the claim "was born female." Saying AFAB would actually make more sense.
Article locked, as always
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 12, 2021
This is what the admin (Alison) who locked the article looks like, by the way.I have no fucking idea why the tranny menace wants to die on the intersex athlete hill.
Article Caster Semenya has this interesting first line "was born female" with 2 citations
View attachment 7443056
the 1st says "Assigned female at birth" which by their own clownworld logic does not equal born female
2nd cites Semenya's passport sex and quotes from the mother.
Neither of these two substantiates the claim "was born female." Saying AFAB would actually make more sense.
Article locked, as always
I would've said something (and quite a lot too), but I guess the saying is true: Pictures really are worth a thousand words.
Vriljami
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2025
"GOP is actually far-right". Everyone's heard this canard. But take a look at that: This was written nearly 20 years ago. They really repeat the same talking points every election.
Besides, I would argue GOP is to the left of many European anti-immigrant populists. At least in the US the GOP pretends they're holding together a multiracial coalition of based minorities, while in Europe they're pushing white nationalism lite talking points. Granted, Trump did defend boers.