Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Here's a weird one that made me go "hahaha" and then "eww", from the "Shades of Red" article. It's a pretty normal article, and then we get to this:

Blood red wikipedia.PNG

"In China, according to The Language of Color in China,[14] dark blood red is sometimes referred to as 'period red'."
Click to expand...

So that's pretty funny. But what about that picture? That blood splatter is... a real blood splatter. It's only used on one other article, a German Wikitionary one for "blutspur", and the blood is from a civet, an animal I've never heard of:

Civet.PNG


So that's just all-around weird.

As for another article I found that wasn't quite worth a post on its own, remember that Super Bowl where everyone saw Janet Jackson's nipple and the media went insane for like a month? It not only has an article, but an extremely long one at that:

Janetwordcount.PNG


It even cites 191 different sources.
 
  • Informative
  • Lunacy
  • Like
Reactions: Madre Muerte, Elim Garak, Kabuki Actor and 7 others
Pissmaster General said:
Here's a weird one that made me go "hahaha" and then "eww", from the "Shades of Red" article. It's a pretty normal article, and then we get to this:

View attachment 1124672



So that's pretty funny. But what about that picture? That blood splatter is... a real blood splatter. It's only used on one other article, a German Wikitionary one for "blutspur", and the blood is from a civet, an animal I've never heard of:

View attachment 1124683

So that's just all-around weird.

As for another article I found that wasn't quite worth a post on its own, remember that Super Bowl where everyone saw Janet Jackson's nipple and the media went insane for like a month? It not only has an article, but an extremely long one at that:

View attachment 1124697

It even cites 191 different sources.
Click to expand...
Fun sidetrack: Read the “diet” section of that Civet page. Specifically, “coffee.” I accept my horrifying ratings in advance.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Hellion, hambeerlyingnreed and 4 others
Large said:
Still better than panda dung tea.
Click to expand...

Idk man. It says that the panda tea is merely fertilized with panda poop, and LOTS of fertilizer is made with animal shit. 🤷🏻‍♀️ You’ve definitely already eaten something that was fertilized with poop. Whereas the civet coffee beans have actually passed through the animals entire digestive system, marinating in all those enzymes and juices, and then get picked out of their shit. No thanks!
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: GrandLobotomite, Elim Garak, ANF and 2 others
грешный дурак said:
Fun sidetrack: Read the “diet” section of that Civet page. Specifically, “coffee.” I accept my horrifying ratings in advance.
Click to expand...
грешный дурак said:
Idk man. It says that the panda tea is merely fertilized with panda poop, and LOTS of fertilizer is made with animal shit. 🤷🏻‍♀️ You’ve definitely already eaten something that was fertilized with poop. Whereas the civet coffee beans have actually passed through the animals entire digestive system, marinating in all those enzymes and juices, and then get picked out of their shit. No thanks!
Click to expand...

We also make cologne and other such products out of their anal secretions too, which is about the only reason I know about them.

It truly is a wondrous animal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Large, UnsufficentBoobage and грешный дурак
Kaede Did Nothing Wrong said:
you've made the news guys, I'm really proud of you all
View attachment 1130113
Click to expand...

That's exactly what we need, a Wikipedia page on every dumb motherfucker on the planet, telling us about their nonexistent accomplishments. Notability? What's that?

Deletionists have lost and so has Wikipedia and so has humanity.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Elim Garak, Slimy Time, UnsufficentBoobage and 2 others
Pissmaster General said:
As for another article I found that wasn't quite worth a post on its own, remember that Super Bowl where everyone saw Janet Jackson's nipple and the media went insane for like a month? It not only has an article, but an extremely long one at that:

View attachment 1124697

It even cites 191 different sources.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia mods are thirteen year old boys who can't figure out how to turn off the safe search on their parents' computers, apparently.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Elim Garak, ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛, Cool kitties club and 4 others
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Dr. Sexbot, Cool kitties club and 6 others
Pissmaster General said:
There's a post in the "Biggest bullshit in a video game" thread where this guy posts a screenshot and explains an entire puzzle in a game, without actually saying what game it is. So I searched "goat puzzle adventure game", and found out that puzzle has its own entire Wikipedia article titled "The Goat Puzzle".

Interesting trivia, but... really? That's worthy of an entire article? Not just a footnote on the game's own page?
Click to expand...
Y'know I read that post and I had no idea what game that was even from. If nothing else this was helpful in finding out what game it was from.

That said, I agree this doesn't seem like it needs its own page. It's like if the Battletoads bike level got its own page or that mustache puzzle from Gabriel Knight.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Francis E. Dec Esc., Michaelsoft and 2 others
Duncan Hills Coffee said:
Y'know I read that post and I had no idea what game that was even from. If nothing else this was helpful in finding out what game it was from.

That said, I agree this doesn't seem like it needs its own page. It's like if the Battletoads bike level got its own page or that mustache puzzle from Gabriel Knight.
Click to expand...
On one hand, it is completely arbitrary and stupid that it has it's own page. However I do think shit like this probably should have some record of existence so that we don't lose it to time.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Large and Captain Hastings Official
Clearly, it's important to note in the lead section article about the coronavirus pandemic that it has caused people to be racist against the Chinese and there's lots of "misinformation" like theories of it being a bioweapon, accidentally leaked, or it being worse than the Chinese government claims.

archive.is

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak - Wikipedia

archived 9 Feb 2020 23:50:08 UTC
archive.is archive.is
The outbreak has been declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO), based on the possible effects the virus could have if it spreads to countries with weaker healthcare systems. The declaration was the sixth time that the measure has been invoked since the H1N1 pandemic in 2009.[7][39][40][41] Xenophobia and racism against people of Chinese and East Asian descent has arisen as a result of the outbreak, with fear and hostility occurring in several countries.[42][43][44][45] Misinformation spread primarily online about the coronavirus has led the WHO to declare an "infodemic" on 2 February.[46]
Click to expand...

Both of these have articles too with lots of reliable sources like the MSM who's getting their own sources from the Chinese government.

Muh misinformations
Muh racisms

Guess that's what passes for good Wikipedia articles now since Wikipedia has devoured both Rational Wiki and TV Tropes.
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: Madre Muerte, Elim Garak, Shiny Shroodle and 8 others
I was looking up medieval cuisine when I found this on the page about dandelion & burdock:

dandelion & burdock.png


Well, at least they admit it.


Edit:
It seems there's more, though. When I actually went and checked that citation no. 4, it links to a tweet from an unverified account who claims to be a lecturer at Oxford. Now, I'm sure she actually is who she claims to be. But a single tweet from a random source - and a tweet that itself implicitly calls into question the credibility of academics on the faculty of ancient British universities when they tell tales, i.e., people just like its author, doing just what the author is doing - is pretty weak evidence. And it should be noted that the journalistic articles cited in [2] and [3] do not themselves actually specifically cite Wikipedia.

What's the truth in all this, and which story is the urban legend? Fucked if I know. Someone could probably get to the bottom of this with a bit of scholarship, but that would be Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. So they have to compromise and just include both stories.
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Shiny Shroodle, UnsufficentBoobage and 5 others
Captain Hastings Official said:
I was looking up medieval cuisine when I found this on the page about dandelion & burdock:

View attachment 1143435

Well, at least they admit it.


Edit:
It seems there's more, though. When I actually went and checked that citation no. 4, it links to a tweet from an unverified account who claims to be a lecturer at Oxford. Now, I'm sure she actually is who she claims to be. But a single tweet from a random source - and a tweet that itself implicitly calls into question the credibility of academics on the faculty of ancient British universities when they tell tales, i.e., people just like its author, doing just what the author is doing - is pretty weak evidence. And it should be noted that the journalistic articles cited in [2] and [3] do not themselves actually specifically cite Wikipedia.

What's the truth in all this, and which story is the urban legend? Fucked if I know. Someone could probably get to the bottom of this with a bit of scholarship, but that would be Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. So they have to compromise and just include both stories.
Click to expand...
This footnote itself might be a joke perpetrated by Cambridge students to troll Wikipedia.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage, Hellion and 3 others
Shaka Brah said:
This footnote itself might be a joke perpetrated by Cambridge students to troll Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
I know Snopes has dragged its name through the mud in recent years thanks to their blatant partisanship, but they had a section meant to trick people who didn't do their own research which featured them making up their own urban legends like the California flag, the Bear Flag, was originally the "Pear Flag" and only became the Bear Flag thanks to the fact people couldn't read well enough to understand the designers of the flag wanted a pear on it rather than a bear. The intent was to make people look stupid so they'd do their own research and presumably be less vulnerable to believing in urban legends. This looks similar to that, where "trusted sources" are fucking around with people.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Shiny Shroodle, Cool kitties club and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back