Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Captain Manning]

One thing I do like about the bro-county article is that the "Response" section gets pretty savage. This is the type of shit KF documents on the regular. Almost makes me wanna vote to keep the article.

Zac Brown described Luke Bryan’s "That's My Kind of Night" as the worst song he had ever heard, to which Jason Aldean replied, "nobody gives a shit what u think."[7] Aldean also called the term bro-country ridiculous and was bothered to be labeled as such because he did not "feel like it's a compliment," that "it's sort of a backhanded thing that comes from a very narrow-minded listener".[26] On his song about drinking and trucks, he said: "Yeah, we've had some songs that talk about that stuff. But that's also what we really grew up doing. A lot of us grew up in these little towns where there wasn't a whole lot to do, and we were entertaining ourselves. I can't sing you a song about being a stockbroker on Wall Street, because I don't even know where the hell Wall Street's at."[27]

(Emphasis added)

 

[Tehshigelisok]

Almost all of the sources cited are bogus and don't even mention the phrase at all.

That right there is a very valid concern on the article's reputability.

 

[IV 445]

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

 

[TheImportantFart]

The Wikipedia page for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed now describes it as a propaganda film:

They’re not technically wrong, since Expelled actually is a propaganda film (and a terrible one at that), but they don’t apply this same descriptor to Bill Maher’s Religulous which could just as easily be described as propaganda:

 

[AnOminous]

The Wikipedia page for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed now describes it as a propaganda film:

View attachment 674697
They’re not technically wrong, since Expelled actually is a propaganda film (and a terrible one at that), but they don’t apply this same descriptor to Bill Maher’s Religulous which could just as easily be described as propaganda:

View attachment 674698

More of Wikipedia's "objective" and "encyclopedic" content. Also they don't describe any of Michael Moore's movies that way.

There is literally no reason to describe Expelled this way. It is an atrociously bad documentary, and a propaganda film, but that is an opinion. Wikipedia is openly editorializing.

 

[IV 445]

Not dumb per se but

 

[Stoneheart]

Not dumb per se but View attachment 682197

I dont understand your problem. Thats Dumb shit in real life, Wiki is right here. those rockets realy existed.

 

[IV 445]

I dont understand your problem. Thats Dumb shit in real life, Wiki is right here. those rockets realy existed.

Not dumb but awesome.

 

[Darwin Watterson]

So this chick used to be on Boy Meets World, but now she’s a porn star. Except Wikipedia doesn’t actually mention that at all, and any attempt to add it in gets swiftly reverted. Why? Because apparently there are no “reliable sources” that talk about it. I bring this up because it’s an incredibly odd practice and almost Orwellian in a way. Like, you can easily search up her name and find that yes, she’s doing porn now. Except that no she isn’t because Wikipedia says that there aren’t any reliable sources saying she is. It’s like they’re asking “who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?”

 

[HeyYou]

So this chick used to be on Boy Meets World, but now she’s a porn star. Except Wikipedia doesn’t actually mention that at all, and any attempt to add it in gets swiftly reverted. Why? Because apparently there are no “reliable sources” that talk about it. I bring this up because it’s an incredibly odd practice and almost Orwellian in a way. Like, you can easily search up her name and find that yes, she’s doing porn now. Except that no she isn’t because Wikipedia says that there aren’t any reliable sources saying she is. It’s like they’re asking “who are you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?”

They do the same shit on video game articles. You can't use a developer actually talking about the game themselves if it's not on the correct platform, you have to use their reliable sources, which are invariably places like Kotaku and Polygon and shit, to give their hot takes first, hot takes you can then justifiably put in the article. While all of this is happening, the original comment is being lost in the shuffle.

The Last Jedi's article is terrible at this, go to the reactions section. You can't actually ask detractors what they didn't like and put it in the article, it all has to come through Vox and shit first.

And to be fair to wikipedia, they did that originally to attempt to prevent bias, which is why scientific articles are actually very good and well sourced. But certain fields are just straight up only opinion pieces, like games and movies, and extremely pozzed at that. It works against wikipedia in those subjects, and they probably need to relax or get rid of reliability requirements for popular media. Especially as more and more reviewers are people without degrees doing their business on places like YouTube. I remember a huge spat regarding whether Anthony Fantano was considered reliable on music articles because he had been an official employee of an NPR station once, and the decision was "lol no he's not, unless it's so obscure he's the only voice we can get".

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

So this chick used to be on Boy Meets World, but now she’s a porn star. Except Wikipedia doesn’t actually mention that at all, and any attempt to add it in gets swiftly reverted. Why? Because apparently there are no “reliable sources” that talk about it. I bring this up because it’s an incredibly odd practice and almost Orwellian in a way. Like, you can easily search up her name and find that yes, she’s doing porn now. Except that no she isn’t because Wikipedia says that there aren’t any reliable sources saying she is. It’s like they’re asking “who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?”

I like that the closest they bring up regarding that is the fact she's a cosplay star and that she posts nudes on Snapchat and Instagram, but not the porn career.

 

[Raging Capybara]

With all the Michael Jackson controversies resurfacing again, I decided to search for the most useless and stupid entry on wikipedia about him. I found this precious article here:

Michael Jackson and Bubbles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A fucking sculpture.

 

[trashbat]

I'm guessing they monitor KF for signs of vandalism.

we're all assburgers here, at least one of us is bound to be a wikipedia editor

 

[AnOminous]

I like that the closest they bring up regarding that is the fact she's a cosplay star and that she posts nudes on Snapchat and Instagram, but not the porn career.

I liked when they had an utterly idiotic interpretation of one of Philip Roth's novels and he told them it was idiotic and explained why and said Wikipedia was fucking stupid, too, but he wasn't a "reliable source" on his own novel so he published an article mocking the fuck out of them in said "reliable source" which he could have done in the first place because he's fucking Philip Roth, bitch.

An Open Letter to Wikipedia

I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my work. The entry contains a serious misstatement that I…

www.newyorker.com

Note, Philip Roth has privilege because he can actually issue an open letter to Wikipedia in a "reliable source." If they're fucking with you, forget about being able to do that.

The "reliable source" bullshit sounds on its surface like a reasonable encyclopedic rule until you remember that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. It's a cabal of autistic cretins and the only ones who prevail in these shitfights are the ones most willing to exceed the bounds of autism and not just say fuck this and give up.

And "reliable sources" that the cabal approves can include blogs and Gawker sites and other utter trash if they support their prevailing narrative, while actual newspapers can fail the test. Cf. any Gamergate-related article, or biographies of hoax personalities like John Walker Flynt/Brianna Wu, which is full of brazen falsehoods from so-called "reliable sources."

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

I liked when they had an utterly idiotic interpretation of one of Philip Roth's novels and he told them it was idiotic and explained why and said Wikipedia was fucking stupid, too, but he wasn't a "reliable source" on his own novel so he published an article mocking the fuck out of them in said "reliable source" which he could have done in the first place because he's fucking Philip Roth, bitch.

An Open Letter to Wikipedia

I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my work. The entry contains a serious misstatement that I…

www.newyorker.com

Note, Philip Roth has privilege because he can actually issue an open letter to Wikipedia in a "reliable source." If they're fucking with you, forget about being able to do that.

The "reliable source" bullshit sounds on its surface like a reasonable encyclopedic rule until you remember that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. It's a cabal of autistic cretins and the only ones who prevail in these shitfights are the ones most willing to exceed the bounds of autism and not just say fuck this and give up.

And "reliable sources" that the cabal approves can include blogs and Gawker sites and other utter trash if they support their prevailing narrative, while actual newspapers can fail the test. Cf. any Gamergate-related article, or biographies of hoax personalities like John Walker Flynt/Brianna Wu, which is full of brazen falsehoods from so-called "reliable sources."

My favorite part about all this is if you go to the article now, there is a section titled "Alleged Resemblance to Anatole Broyard," complete with several citations of brain-dead critics and writers making that assertion. So they still refuse to remove it, they just added that Roth himself disputed it.

Also this:

Roth described in a 2012 piece for The New Yorker how his novel was inspired by an event in the life of his friend Melvin Tumin, a "professor of sociology at Princeton for some thirty years". Tumin was subject to a "witch hunt" but was ultimately found blameless in a matter involving use of allegedly racial language concerning two African American students.[3]

The absolute balls of Wikipedia to use Roth's takedown of them for their precious secondary source while conveniently not mentioning the article was specifically written against them. The only way you'd know that Roth's piece was targeting Wikipedia specifically is if you'd look at the citations, and let's face it, most normal people don't.

 

[AnOminous]

The absolute balls of Wikipedia to use Roth's takedown of them for their precious secondary source while conveniently not mentioning the article was specifically written against them. The only way you'd know that Roth's piece was targeting Wikipedia specifically is if you'd look at the citations, and let's face it, most normal people don't.

Anyone sensible realized Wikipedia was absolute garbage around the time of this article if not before.

This is why you're not allowed to cite this trash fire in any legitimate academic practice.

 

[Darwin Watterson]

The absolute balls of Wikipedia to use Roth's takedown of them for their precious secondary source while conveniently not mentioning the article was specifically written against them. The only way you'd know that Roth's piece was targeting Wikipedia specifically is if you'd look at the citations, and let's face it, most normal people don't.

I wonder what would happen if someone tried to include that little factoid? They couldn't just delete it, because there's no way that isn't a reliable source; they themselves have demonstrated that they believe it is because of the inclusion of Roth's refutation of their original claims. So, if someone puts it in, phrasing it in a neutral-sounding, "encyclopedic" way, and they take it out, then they look bad for trying to memory hole something that makes them look stupid.

 

[Lucille Bluth]

So apparently that perverted teacher "Mary Kay Latourneau" and his student husband have announced their separation. Several major outlets have run this story. I decided to use some site called "E News" or "People", who began reporting the story.

I've been told that if I edit I need to write with a "neutral" view when most of the sources cited are very biased.

I decided to edit the section on their marriage but some cuck removed my edit because they claimed my article wasn't "of high quality" and another mod said that the event wasn't "notable". The irony is? I've seen both "E! News" and "People" used as sources many times on Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau#Release_from_prison_and_marriage_to_Fualaau)

 

[Peace and Harmony]

So apparently that perverted teacher "Mary Kay Latourneau" and his student husband have announced their separation.

Thanks, that led me directly to this utterly batshit re,tarded list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teachers_who_married_their_students

 

[Lucille Bluth]

Thanks, that led me directly to this utterly batshit re,tarded list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teachers_who_married_their_students

Yeah I've never clicked on that no matter how curious I get.

I still can't believe those mods at Wikipedia told me that I have to write/edit with a "neutral" perspective when many of the sources they cite are just as cluttered with bias. I also pointed out the contradictions/bias the "respectable" sources that users cited had with other articles on Wikipedia and had all my edits deleted and had "warnings about my false claims" were issued.