- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
Who does the wikimedia foundation think they are to expect people to shovel them cash like this? At least in days past it was somewhat unobtrusive.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Wikipedia is probably going to get sued successfully at some point, regardless of section 230, because it is actually the source of the defamation.
- Joined
- May 24, 2020
I see Wikipedia graduated from the DarkSydePhil school of begging.
EDIT: Forgot video
- Joined
- May 5, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
This all reminds me of Loudwire's "Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction" series, where various celebrities are asked if Wikipedia is right about them or not. Sometimes they don't even get their names right.
- Joined
- May 24, 2020
Didn't Niel DeGrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins or whatever Science Man™ have to clarify one of the most basic facts about themselves in an online news article because Wikipedia prevented them from using their own knowledge about themselves as a source?
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
I'm not sure, but I know Philip Roth had a beef with Wikipedia before he died.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2019
Oh yeah, this relentless begging people working 9-5 jobs to shell out their hard earned cash is much better and less obtrusive than running some fucking ads and taking money from large corporations instead.
More likely the people running Wikipedia know that ads won't make them as much money due to adblock, but they're playing it up as some kind of noble sacrifice.
Michaelsoft
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Like I'm going to pay a bunch of autistic NEETs to make up bullshit about people. If I wanted to do that I'd donate to here again, except it's less bullshit than Wikipedia at this point.
Large
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2018
"Reverted 1 good faith edit"
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2018
Wikipedia is an openly-editable online encyclopedia that - while it wants you to believe that it's a reliable, professional site - is really just what any other open forum is. A disaster dogpile of armchair intellectuals fumbling through a summarization of topics that they don't thoroughly understand, but on which they still feel that they can be a reliable source. All, of course, while failing to consider earlier, conflicting edits on the same page, creating a jambalaya of self-contradictions that ultimately leave you skipping straight to the 'references' section where you can find actual information.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
The best Wikipedia pages are obviously the latest results of brutal battles. Check any Israel/Palestine related page, where there is still literally warm blood on the ground, and the current wording is the result of the last battle between these fucking retards, where the edits just ended with fanatical Jews and raving electronic intifada terrorists collapsing in exhaustion for a mere moment, and you're just looking at what's there before the fight starts again.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2018
I remember looking at a page concerning a Palestinian conflict, once. I don't recall which one or specifically what it was about, but I do remember one line where the Israeli soldiers were referred to as "our" soldiers along with a lot of other poorly-written bias. I promptly clicked off and went to another page about tapestries, which is a reading I recall more vividly.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
The featured articles are pretty good. Like the one on Hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen or the math ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)
I guess no one is pushing their fringe chemistry or math views as hard.
I guess no one is pushing their fringe chemistry or math views as hard.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
The chemical pages are edit-locked to a cadre of appointed editors from some chemist's association. I can't remember if it's a subset of the AAAS or something else, but they basically aren't allowed to be changed by your average idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
no they're not. at least the hydrogen one. only semi-protected. so your account only needs to be 4 days old and have at least 10 edits.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
Hmm, maybe they don't do it anymore, or it's just some pages or sections. This is something I heard about years ago.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
It would possibly be better if the already established pages (such as featured pages) could only be edited by some qualified individuals. But that restriction can't be put on new pages because then the site wouldn't have the breadth of topics it has now.