Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

This is the kind of shit that genuinely annoys me on Wikipedia. When exactly did it get so utterly full of shit that it turned into Know Your Meme? Why the fuck are literal memes now Wikipedia article worthy? Remember when this kind of shit used to be deleted? Remember when it was Criteria for Speedy Deletion level?

I'm not kidding, it used to be if you saw absolute garbage like this on Wikipedia, and you flagged it, it would be gone in minutes.

Also the point of that article? Asking for evidence of idiotic claims is, literally, Nazism. That's the point.
They've got a page for fucking Milkshake Duck, that utterly meaningless "meme" phrase Twitter morons use to attack creators that don't share their own views. Nobody but a small group of idiots has ever used it, and you'll never hear anyone in real life use it, but Wikipedia has an article on it because the right people use it.
 
Give me my retarded ratings, but I don't find any of this funny or lolcow-ish. I find it somewhat worrying, because wiki is used as a resource for so many people. We can point out how stupid they are for using this, but a lot of them are young and have been pushed into that site and its promince with no defense against it. They are clearly full of shit and a fair few of the articles are going to create a problem in which people have a skewed version of reality, and they can rewrite history to suit the narritive they want to have.

Reddit and twitter are all gay, but they are mostly harmless and I like to think normal people learn to leave that shit alone or just avoid the main shithole subs (sticking to very niche shit, like a video game or course fishing in scotland), but wiki holds a position that it informs people. This is the same shit as when the education system got infested with commies, and we are now seeing the fallout of that. Our future selves will have to deal with the wiki fallout in years to come.
 
Give me my retarded ratings, but I don't find any of this funny or lolcow-ish. I find it somewhat worrying, because wiki is used as a resource for so many people. We can point out how stupid they are for using this, but a lot of them are young and have been pushed into that site and its promince with no defense against it. They are clearly full of shit and a fair few of the articles are going to create a problem in which people have a skewed version of reality, and they can rewrite history to suit the narritive they want to have.

Reddit and twitter are all gay, but they are mostly harmless and I like to think normal people learn to leave that shit alone or just avoid the main shithole subs (sticking to very niche shit, like a video game or course fishing in scotland), but wiki holds a position that it informs people. This is the same shit as when the education system got infested with commies, and we are now seeing the fallout of that. Our future selves will have to deal with the wiki fallout in years to come.
Yes.
 
We can point out how stupid they are for using this, but a lot of them are young and have been pushed into that site and its promince with no defense against it.
It is their teacher's job to tell their students in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia is not an education tool. If you cite Wikipedia in your homework, you get an automatic Fail.
 
Give me my retarded ratings, but I don't find any of this funny or lolcow-ish. I find it somewhat worrying, because wiki is used as a resource for so many people. We can point out how stupid they are for using this, but a lot of them are young and have been pushed into that site and its promince with no defense against it. They are clearly full of shit and a fair few of the articles are going to create a problem in which people have a skewed version of reality, and they can rewrite history to suit the narritive they want to have.

Reddit and twitter are all gay, but they are mostly harmless and I like to think normal people learn to leave that shit alone or just avoid the main shithole subs (sticking to very niche shit, like a video game or course fishing in scotland), but wiki holds a position that it informs people. This is the same shit as when the education system got infested with commies, and we are now seeing the fallout of that. Our future selves will have to deal with the wiki fallout in years to come.
Who’s “pushing“ young people to Wikipedia? Every instructor I ever had always told everyone not to use Wikipedia for any reason if they’re doing research. They outright flunked anyone who they suspected of using it for projects.
 

He is "depicted as the actual initiator of the scheme of the Armenian Genocide".[2] He was an ardent supporter of Hitler during 1930s also.[3]
Please tell me more Wikipedia about how a future Nazi was the true architect of the Armenian Genocide. Also note the two sources. The first is an Armenian historian who writes on the Armenian Genocide. The second is some Turkish blog. Sure comes off like some low-effort attempt from a Turkroach wanting to pin the Armenian Genocide on Germany since there's nothing else backing this statement.
 


Please tell me more Wikipedia about how a future Nazi was the true architect of the Armenian Genocide. Also note the two sources. The first is an Armenian historian who writes on the Armenian Genocide. The second is some Turkish blog. Sure comes off like some low-effort attempt from a Turkroach wanting to pin the Armenian Genocide on Germany since there's nothing else backing this statement.
Any article connected to the Turks or Ottomans are often hilariously ill sourced and in desperate need of proper verification
Just take a look at this beauty


800 Ottomans defeat a army of at least 50 000 Serbs. Now how did the Ottomans manage such a brilliant victory? Where did the Serbs get 50 000 men? You'll have to read the primary sources because the article neglects to mention that. Of course people who've looked up the primary sources can attest that they don't remotely say anything of the sorts.
 
Any article connected to the Turks or Ottomans are often hilariously ill sourced and in desperate need of proper verification
Just take a look at this beauty


800 Ottomans defeat a army of at least 50 000 Serbs. Now how did the Ottomans manage such a brilliant victory? Where did the Serbs get 50 000 men? You'll have to read the primary sources because the article neglects to mention that. Of course people who've looked up the primary sources can attest that they don't remotely say anything of the sorts.
I can buy 800 to 1,000 men killing nearly thrice their number during a night raid, but most of the casualties were from the Serbs drowning in the river.

Nice clickbait, though.
 
It is their teacher's job to tell their students in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia is not an education tool. If you cite Wikipedia in your homework, you get an automatic Fail.

Wikipedia is a good educational tool for one purpose at this point. I think kids should actually be assigned a Wikipedia article and told to fact-check its citations so they can realize that just because a Wikipedia article cites shit doesn't mean the source actually says what the autistic piece of shit who wrote the article claims, or that the source is even worth anything. Encyclopedias in general, even the best like Britannica, should never be viewed as authoritative.

One difference though is shit in Britannica is probably written by someone with an education, while shit on Wikipedia is probably written by some autistic piece of shit in a basement.
 
Any article connected to the Turks or Ottomans are often hilariously ill sourced and in desperate need of proper verification
Just take a look at this beauty


800 Ottomans defeat a army of at least 50 000 Serbs. Now how did the Ottomans manage such a brilliant victory? Where did the Serbs get 50 000 men? You'll have to read the primary sources because the article neglects to mention that. Of course people who've looked up the primary sources can attest that they don't remotely say anything of the sorts.
lmao, do Turkboiz really have this much trouble coping with the fact that their history is full of battles where they were humiliated by outnumbered, outgunned and hungry Croats, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles etc. that they have to make up shit like THIS?
 
lmao, do Turkboiz really have this much trouble coping with the fact that their history is full of battles where they were humiliated by outnumbered, outgunned and hungry Croats, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles etc. that they have to make up shit like THIS?
lmao, do Turkboiz really have this much trouble coping with the fact that their history is full of battles where they were humiliated by outnumbered, outgunned and hungry Croats, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles etc. that they have to make up shit like THIS?
Yes, this is a frequent issue


There is no single record of this battle in Serbian and Hungarian sources. All information about the battle of 1364 is based on Ottoman sources.

The actual sourced parts of the article actually points out that the Ottomans pretend all the Christians were allied against them and that they were slaughtering the greatest armies of Europe, while European sources claim they were too busy dunking on each other to care about the Ottomans
 
Last edited:
lmao, do Turkboiz really have this much trouble coping with the fact that their history is full of battles where they were humiliated by outnumbered, outgunned and hungry Croats, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles etc. that they have to make up shit like THIS?

Do you underestimate the power of turkroaches to make up absolute bullshit to justify their failures throughout all of history?
 
Yes, this is a frequent issue




The actual sourced parts of the article actually points out that the Ottomans pretend all the Christians were allied against them and that they were slaughtering the greatest armies of Europe, while European sources claim they were too busy dunking on each other to care about the Ottomans
I love how they're both "night raids", what did they think that it makes it any more believable?
Do you underestimate the power of turkroaches to make up absolute bullshit to justify their failures throughout all of history?
On one hand I'd say yes because I've had first hand experience with them making shit up, but I never knew about this. My third eye has been opened. At this point I'd find it plausible that some made up battle was part of a primary Ottoman source which claims that during a night raid 10 Turkish supersoldiers defeated over 100,000 Austro-Hungarian troops. I'd also accept that at some point Ottomans thought that they were a highly technologically advanced spacefaring civilization until the evil mad scientist Mehmet through selective breeding created the evil every-other-ethnic-group-on-Earth people who went out of they cavez n' stole our history n' technology n' kulcha!
 
I love how they're both "night raids", what did they think that it makes it any more believable?

On one hand I'd say yes because I've had first hand experience with them making shit up, but I never knew about this. My third eye has been opened. At this point I'd find it plausible that some made up battle was part of a primary Ottoman source which claims that during a night raid 10 Turkish supersoldiers defeated over 100,000 Austro-Hungarian troops. I'd also accept that at some point Ottomans thought that they were a highly technologically advanced spacefaring civilization until the evil mad scientist Mehmet through selective breeding created the evil every-other-ethnic-group-on-Earth people who went out of they cavez n' stole our history n' technology n' kulcha!
They also like to claim they are the descendants of Huns, Romans, Mongols, the Prophet Muhammed, etc.
There is some truth to the nation being a genetic hodgepodge, but a Turk claiming he's a mongol because his ancestor possibly got raped by a mongol carries as much weight as a Moroccan claiming he's German because his ancestor got raped by Vandals and Suebians during the fall of the Roman Empire
 
Back