Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Darwin Watterson]

Their article on the Memorial High School stabbing goes out of its way to avoid mentioning Karmelo Anthony by name, settling on euphemisms like "the accused," even though his name is public knowledge. What makes this even funnier is that 23 of the 51 sources cited have Anthony's name right there in the title, and these can be found in the references list nobody will read, but the article itself never mentions it. Despite their "reliable sources" fetish, they'll still selectively omit things like that if it doesn't further the narrative.

 

[Treff Matthiesen]

Wikipedia is not subject to UK law, especially when the accused is not British.

("Karmelo Anthony" does redirect there, and there's a hatnote on Carmelo Anthony with a C pointing to that redirect.)

 

[AnOminous]

Wikipedia is not subject to UK law, especially when the accused is not British.

Pretty sure that's wrong.

https://wikimedia.org.uk/

They have a physical presence in the UK. They might have trouble enforcing a judgment in the U.S. that would be unconstitutional here, but they'd assert jurisdiction. The UK is a libel tourism hotspot for people all over the world, like the terrorist supporting Islamic extremists who sue there for libel for being truthfully called the terrorist supporting Islamic extremists they are, sometimes successfully.

 

[Corpun]

We're back to abortions in Africa.
View attachment 7611154
Why yes, the country that most Americans know due to Pan Am 103 and the murder of American diplomats is truly one of the United States' greatest allies.

Wikipedia sure does love promoting murdering babies with brown skin.

 

[Mister Eveready]

Pretty sure that's wrong.

https://wikimedia.org.uk/

They have a physical presence in the UK. They might have trouble enforcing a judgment in the U.S. that would be unconstitutional here, but they'd assert jurisdiction. The UK is a libel tourism hotspot for people all over the world, like the terrorist supporting Islamic extremists who sue there for libel for being truthfully called the terrorist supporting Islamic extremists they are, sometimes successfully.

They’re based in the US, therefore US law applies to their content. Take Wikipedia’s sister site Wikimedia Commons, for example. They explicitly state that all the content uploaded there has be out of copyright in both its country of origin and the US.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nazis_myth

This is the single dumbest article I've ever read on Wikipedia. What's the point they're trying to make that you can't be gay and be a Nazi? Or the Nazis don't like gays? Because there was actual Nazi parties who after the war did allow homosexual members and those gay Nazis.

This reminds me of the argument with Amira article, generally retarded.

 

[WhiteNight]

This is the single dumbest article I've ever read on Wikipedia.

I don't agree. The myth it's describing is a real one. There is a recurrent trope that the Nazi party was flamingly gay. It wasn't.

The article is not claiming there were no gay Nazis, only that it wasn't teeming with, or led by, homosexuals.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

I don't agree. The myth it's describing is a real one. There is a recurrent trope that the Nazi party was flamingly gay. It wasn't.

The article is not claiming there were no gay Nazis, only that it wasn't teeming with, or led by, homosexuals.

Disagree. I think there's an overlap between homosexuality and National Socialism and fascism a lot more than people think.
Especially in the model National Socialist movement and a lot of Neo Nazis or closeted gays.













like Nick Fuentes? Bronze Age pervert Greg Johnson? Ghoul from The Right Stuff.
Keith Woods.

 

[Mound Dweller]

Disagree. I think there's an overlap between homosexuality and National Socialism and fascism a lot more than people think.
Especially in the model National Socialist movement and a lot of Neo Nazis or closeted gays.

I think much like the "clerical homosexuality" thing it's a false connection, priests don't turn out to be homos anymore than the rest of the population statistically speaking, it just sticks out more, much in the same way knob slobbering faggot nahtzees stick out more. You only notice it because of how absurd it is but in terms of numbers; not that weird really, still fucking hilarious though.
For something in a similar context (gay g*rmans) see the earlier Eulenburg affair, much the same shit, but you don't see an article on homosexual monarchists do you?

 

[Gremperor]

Disagree. I think there's an overlap between homosexuality and National Socialism and fascism a lot more than people think.

Well yeah, you can just look at the modern Nazi party to see that.

 

[Vriljami]

Because there was actual Nazi parties who after the war did allow homosexual members and those gay Nazis.

Really? I know Russell Veh was gay, and he ran some sort of nazi video distribution operation, but I don't know of any pro-gay neo-Nazi party.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

I often make drive by posts in this thread, because its so easy to see something dumb in Wikipedia and share it.

But I think I hit a motherlode, finally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grnrchst/David_Woodard_report


Guy makes hundreds of accounts over 10 years across over 300 different language wikipedias.

That might be the most autistic way of self promotion ever.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

priests don't turn out to be homos anymore than the rest of the population statistically speaking, it just sticks out more

Doubt.

Historically speaking, the priesthood was really the only place for gays to hide unless they were willing to live with a beard. After all, what better career choice for someone who has no interest in women or starting a family then a profession that bans it?

 

[Mound Dweller]

Doubt.

Historically speaking, the priesthood was really the only place for gays to hide unless they were willing to live with a beard. After all, what better career choice for someone who has no interest in women or starting a family then a profession that bans it?

Now you see this is the classic blunder of taking a pre existing bias and working it backwards to make sense, ironically exactly what the wikipedos love to do all the time, purely illogical, the stats as said speak for themselves; it simply isn't true not matter how much "sense" it makes. You might want it to be true but it just isn't.

 

[Ultra Ping]

I don't agree. The myth it's describing is a real one. There is a recurrent trope that the Nazi party was flamingly gay. It wasn't.

The article is not claiming there were no gay Nazis, only that it wasn't teeming with, or led by, homosexuals.

I think the point is being missed that there's even an article at all, especially with this length, about the subject. It's further evidence of the editorial bias of Wikipedia. For example, a real encyclopedia would not have an article about Sonic characters with 333 cited sources.

 

[scathefire]

I think the point is being missed that there's even an article at all, especially with this length, about the subject. It's further evidence of the editorial bias of Wikipedia. For example, a real encyclopedia would not have an article about Sonic characters with 333 cited sources.

The way it begins reads exactly like a persuasive essay as opposed to an encyclopedic article.

There is a widespread and long-lasting myth alleging that homosexuals were numerous and prominent as a group in the Nazi Party…

Any attempt at sounding informational has gone completely out the window. Ideally the whole thing would be marked for deletion but obviously the powers that be at Wikipedia take no issue with it existing.

 

[AnOminous]

They’re based in the US, therefore US law applies to their content.

Look up "extraterritorial jurisdiction." Also they have physical offices in the UK and assets in the UK, which the UK absolutely has jurisdiction over. They'd probably be better off just suing in the U.S. because if it's defamation, they'll effectively have to retry it in the U.S. because the UK has been such a libel tourism shithole that we actually passed a law against enforcing their judgments here.

They can levy on any assets within their jurisdiction though.

 

[Nelphi]

I don't know if this was posted here, but I'm posting it anyway.

I don't know what's so encyclopedic about an article about a random bird who became famous for 15 seconds. I didn't even know about the existence of "Emmanuel" until the article was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia.

 

[Gemerson]

I don't know if this was posted here, but I'm posting it anyway.

I don't know what's so encyclopedic about an article about a random bird who became famous for 15 seconds. I didn't even know about the existence of "Emmanuel" until the article was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia.

I clicked on the link and thought it was going to be the Nut Bird, the bird with giant testicles, a pinnacle of AI art is more worthy of Wikipediazation than an Emu on GoyTok.

 

[Nelphi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikecrack

Mikecrack is a YouTuber widely hated in the Hispanic community for making shitty videos that only kids under 10 like.

For some reason, the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him (which is actually a good thing), but somehow the English Wikipedia does, which is stupid because in the English community, no one knows who that faggot is.

It would be the equivalent of the Spanish Wikipedia having an article about Jacksepticeye, when no Latinx person knows who Jack is or doesn't care at all about his existence. But if it were Chris Chan, then the admins would delete the article.