Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

They're shilling pedo shit on Wikipedia
1648519526771.png
 
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Political Sperging
Reactions: Blatant hypocrite, Banana Hammock, Alex Hogendorp and 17 others
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Dededon't, Circular Tyrant, Corpun and 13 others
Fictional Character said:
Someone should tell them they're betraying the free world by allowing Russian wikipedia to exist.
Click to expand...
Toolbox said:
I want to see what Russia's wikipedia alternative would be so bad. Please do it wikimedia foundation, press the big red button.
Click to expand...
Is the Ukrainian Wikipedia special too, or is it not as well-known as the Russian one?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Toolbox
albert the programmer said:
Is the Ukrainian Wikipedia special too, or is it not as well-known as the Russian one?
Click to expand...
I mean more along the lines of attempting their own "sanction" by cutting off the wiki from the rest of the site entirely. The autism generated from both sides would be beautiful, but it would be more funny to see wikipedia admins thinking it would do anything.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL, Flaming Insignias and Shaka Brah
Toolbox said:
I want to see what Russia's wikipedia alternative would be so bad. Please do it wikimedia foundation, press the big red button.
Click to expand...
IIRC RU Wikipedia has been on the decline in the past few years because there actually are Russian alternatives to Wikipedia. The pro-Western stance of the Wikimedia Foundation alienates a lot of Russian autists (but not all, as evidenced by the CWC article) although IIRC there's been other reasons (including government censorship which impacts the Chinese, Turkish, etc. Wikipedias). I believe the competitors in Russia aren't as big or government sponsored like the competitors in China which are much larger than ZH Wikipedia even if it says that June 4, 1989 was a perfectly ordinary day in Beijing.
albert the programmer said:
Is the Ukrainian Wikipedia special too, or is it not as well-known as the Russian one?
Click to expand...
It exists but is smaller and any special coverage it has is on regional topics. Like how Yiddish Wikipedia is full of articles on obscure rabbis and shtetls, Ukrainian Wikipedia has the same except obscure medieval Slavic nobles and random Ukrainian towns. Last time I checked it had a giant banner of a tank atop every page where instead of Jimbo Wales/some rando e-begging you to spend money on Wikipedia instead of a cup of coffee, it's telling you to donate to Ukraine.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: lolcow yoghurt, dumb idiot, Toolbox and 3 others
Wikipedia is full of people with "special interests", and some take it to the point of vandalism. Such minor lolcows can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_vandals
https://archive.ph/2hAFS
An esoterism schizo:
https://archive.ph/qgNVP
A guy who adds a fictional person as a former member of bands:
https://archive.ph/zEK14
A guy who makes up conspiracy theories about manga:
https://archive.ph/eV0BP
A politisperg who has a long thread here:
https://archive.ph/fMESH
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/
And more.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Large, Dawn Pennis, Shaka Brah and 3 others

Could have picked a better name than what an incel calls his mass shooting when Stacey fucks Chad instead of him.
could've picked a better name.JPG


Was browsing the miracles of St. Floyd and found this one in Cambodia. Just astoundingly hilarious to me. Didn't know Cambodians were so woke.
Capture.JPG
MrB said:
Some pajeet's creepshot is the main photo on wikipedia's page for waitstaff

View attachment 3079488
Click to expand...
They have Hooters in Singapore? Thought they only hired big titted women.
BootlegPopeye said:
The general trend is that along as it doesn't brush against shitlib interests, you will mostly be left alone. So the Catholic editors will be able to write about Vatican I or the Investiture Controversy or Modernism in the Catholic Church articles - but the fedoras will not allow a quiet article on transubstantiation. Military guys can sperg to their hearts content on the mechanics of various military vehicles, but accurately describing the battle field record of a German General, fuck no.
Click to expand...
I'm curious how long this state of affairs will be until they come for the military spergs and catholics in general.
Flaming Insignias said:
Pure Covidianisn as an article.
Click to expand...
karens.JPG
What the fuck?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: From The Uncanny Valley, Positron, Oats12345 and 5 others
Save the Loli said:
I believe the competitors in Russia aren't as big or government sponsored like the competitors in China which are much larger than ZH Wikipedia even if it says that June 4, 1989 was a perfectly ordinary day in Beijing.
Click to expand...

That moment when it dawns on you that a true competitor to Wikipedia, without MSM bias, will never exist unless it’s written with its own propaganda angle.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Lily Says 41%!, From The Uncanny Valley, Flaming Insignias and 6 others
DoubleD said:
That moment when it dawns on you that a true competitor to Wikipedia, without MSM bias, will never exist unless it’s written with its own propaganda angle.
Click to expand...
I think blatant propaganda can actually be a good source of information because it's very clear about its biases and spotting cleverly hidden bullshit is much easier when you're just casually reading. One study claimed that the most neutral and consistently factual source of news regarding the United States was the English version of Xinhua/some other CCP propaganda outlet because with the majority of stories they had no reason for any partisan spin and just told you what politicians were actually saying or doing or how many people died in a given disaster. No, the study wasn't Chinese propaganda either, it was fairly respectable too.

Wikipedia presents itself as neutral, but clearly isn't. For that matter, one of its competitors, Larry Sanger's Citizendium, was the same, except Citizendium was full of paid editors claiming to be "experts" who shilled homeopathy and other dumb new age shit. The political equivalent would be Conservapedia (IMO RationalWiki was never sure if it wanted to be serious or a simple Conservapedia parody), but Conservapedia was ran by the absolute worst stereotypes of fundie Christians and remains fossilized in the Bush era.
 
  • Winner
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Lily Says 41%!, Positron, Ghostapplesause and 8 others
Corpun said:
View attachment 3137698
What the fuck?
Click to expand...

Ah, leftist wikipedia authors doing that thing where the thing that they do is flipped on it's head. No, Karens always referred to nosy, pushy busybody women, the "I'd like to speak to your manager" types. In this case, the Karens would be the women who feel it is their duty to inform you that you need to be wearing a mask. Not women who simply don't wear them and don't say or do anything else.

Save the Loli said:
I think blatant propaganda can actually be a good source of information because it's very clear about its biases and spotting cleverly hidden bullshit is much easier when you're just casually reading. One study claimed that the most neutral and consistently factual source of news regarding the United States was the English version of Xinhua/some other CCP propaganda outlet because with the majority of stories they had no reason for any partisan spin and just told you what politicians were actually saying or doing or how many people died in a given disaster. No, the study wasn't Chinese propaganda either, it was fairly respectable too.
Click to expand...

Since they don't have a dog in the fight, the subject is given as basically raw information, an approach I favor for news media in general. I don't want commentary, give me the raw video of something that happened instead and I will make up my own mind.

Granted, there will still be bias in so far as what they feel would be worth bringing to my attention, what they choose to note, etc but I think it is the best approach compared to what we have now - most people don't read beyond the title, and if they do, it's the lead paragraph.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Lily Says 41%!, From The Uncanny Valley, Crabouse-united and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back