Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
And now they recycled it as a redirection. However the Wayback Machine and Archive.today have saved copies.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
Papa Pizzaria
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2022
average turkish man
This Article about some rando republican is dripping with seethe and bias.
DamnWolves!
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2021
Wikipedia was fine until they started handing out asspats, which brought the Reddit jannies in by droves. Before, it was just your standard autistics that made 10,000 edits; now it's true blue powertripping jannies.
Moreover, there was a time where NPOV was taken more seriously and any reasonable person could look at a sentence and say "you're right, there's probably a more neutral way to say that". But we live in a world suffused with post-modernism, so reasonability goes out the window in favor of whatever the tranny mob of the week thinks it should be.
For the jannies to hang themselves and livestream it. Maybe put a timed automated update to their userbox in:
"This user took the coward's way out."
You know there's some permanently online wiki editor who takes their job very seriously and is starting discussions with the other jannies on how to properly sanction the perpetrators of the SNEED menace.it's not the contents but rather when people vandalize the articles to add funny shit like "formerly chuck's"
it's also present on the pages of other langauges
I'm seeing a lot of jew curls and noses there. Perhaps they're some of the ones the IDF pays to edit Wikipedia. Anyone have an alternate theory for why a young woman would spend thousands of hours editing Wikipedia? Is it just an early version of social media clout, except on Wiki you can be a 5 and the mutants will treat you like a 9?
As a professional tardwrangler of IT people, I recognize these guys a mile away. Truth be told, a lot of these guys just don't have much going on in their lives. They're stuck in some middling job where no one really pays attention to what they're doin and they have admin privileges on their work computers and so they sit there and dedicate themselves to something "more fulfilling". Losers, through and through.
15 years ago, the term "fringe theory" would have never appeared in a Wikipedia article. Just goes to show you how much it's devolved since then.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Yeah but the Electronic Intifada types have also been doing that shit since forever too. Previously they would just let that shit shake out and throw the occasional case into some bullshit ArbCom thing and a few of the worst perpetrators would be banned (or just banned from that particular article) and the article would still be coherent after a batch of idiots decided whose sources had the biggest dick.
Now it's just pure open shilling for the propaganda, with the worst perpetrators not only tolerated but actually in charge of the whole corrupt thing.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
As of a few years ago, the wiki jannies still used IRC for their back channel chatting. I don't know if that's still the case but I wouldn't be totally surprised if they intentionally used the most low-tech option.
Some of the really early prominent editors were also usenets spergs in the early to late 90s, something about Wikipedia really attracted the old newsgroup crowd.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
No, it did, but it was exclusively reserved for insane shit like alien abductions and chemtrails and the most political thing you might see called a fringe theory was creationism. Now a "fringe theory" is anything not lockstep with the mainstream media's messaging.
The best part is how because the covid scamdemic narrative changes every few months (and often changes to what used to be "fringe theories"), some articles wind up incredibly out of date with what The Science currently says on the subject.
Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
The case of Wikipedia deleting Kathy Barnette's entry didn't escaped the eyes of American Thinker who posted an article about that.
May 11, 2022
Wikipedia deletes article on PA senate primary candidate who is surging toward defeating Dr. Oz
By Thomas Lifson
Wikipedia, now a highly politicized propaganda outlet, apparently wants Dr. Oz to win the Pennsylvania Republican Senate nomination. That is the logical conclusion from their decision to delete an existing article on Kathy Barnette, who has surged into second place, only 1.3% (i.e., within the margin of error) behind Dr. Mehmet Oz in the latest Trafalgar Group poll:
Barnette noted the deletion on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Kathy4Truth/status/1524032510174322689
According to Zachary Stieber in The Epoch Times:
As of this writing, the only mention of Kathy Barnette is in an article on the Republican primary.
Fox News found her worthy of attention in a five minute segment:
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
I found this page on Wikipedia that is funny for all the wrong reasons
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
Dr. Oz went from being a guy accused of selling Snake Oil to now being shadowbanned for being American First. His own fan base that listened to him for years is now being given a taste as to what it’s like to think that the establishment media won’t come for you.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
Maybe a stretch, but this juxtaposition in an article about camels seemed a bit sus:
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2016
I don’t remember Barbara Billingsley looking like that
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2019
I don't remember Wikipedia looking like that
Tootsie Bear
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2014
It's crazy seeing how bad Wikipedia has gone down the toilet. Today one of Wikipedia's "Did you know..." features this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Christian_Siriano_gown_of_Billy_Porter
If your first question is who? Then you're not alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Christian_Siriano_gown_of_Billy_Porter
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
That's actually the whole point of DYK: to "hook" people into seeing articles they wouldn't otherwise. Looks like it worked.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
Wikipedia’s “Did You Know” segment used to be entertaining until they decided that celebrity and pop culture news is the equivalent to current events and global news. It’s kind of like People Magazine trying to reach to normies that are not as aware to celebrity culture until Donald Trump became POTUS.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2021
It's just occurred to me, almost out of nowhere, that Wikipedia doesn't have an equivalent to the "off-topic" section on most forums, in which Wikipedians would be able to talk about things that interest them but are outside the scope of compiling an encyclopedia (i.e. the thing every talk page tells you not to do).
It would be the ideal place if you were researching say, incels, and discovered some obscure little research tangent or detail that doesn't quite fit within the article but wanted to share it anyway with your fellow Wikipedians. One benefit to this is that it would negate (some of) the need to post these details in the actual articles.
But the bigger benefit (in my opinion) is that it would humanise Wikipedia editors, allowing the everyday member of the public (including those who are thinking of joining them) to see what they're like as people – what makes them tick beyond editing Wikipedia, their views on religion, politics, etc. – rather than as some shadowy faceless council. That was my first thought.
My second thought is that allowing Wikipedians to powerlevel their politics and religion would quickly become more of a liability than anything else. And it is perhaps by design why an off-topic forum has not been added. I doubt Jimmy Wales ever saw that far ahead in the early noughties, but I speculate this is why the feature have never been implemented since.
Or is this not as as obvious a feature as I think it is? Again, this is merely speculation on my part. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
It would be the ideal place if you were researching say, incels, and discovered some obscure little research tangent or detail that doesn't quite fit within the article but wanted to share it anyway with your fellow Wikipedians. One benefit to this is that it would negate (some of) the need to post these details in the actual articles.
But the bigger benefit (in my opinion) is that it would humanise Wikipedia editors, allowing the everyday member of the public (including those who are thinking of joining them) to see what they're like as people – what makes them tick beyond editing Wikipedia, their views on religion, politics, etc. – rather than as some shadowy faceless council. That was my first thought.
My second thought is that allowing Wikipedians to powerlevel their politics and religion would quickly become more of a liability than anything else. And it is perhaps by design why an off-topic forum has not been added. I doubt Jimmy Wales ever saw that far ahead in the early noughties, but I speculate this is why the feature have never been implemented since.
Or is this not as as obvious a feature as I think it is? Again, this is merely speculation on my part. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
I think the issue is you'll get something akin to Discord cliques and behavior.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2021
I've always considered the DYK section of the homepage one of the most autistic parts of Wikipedia. Every page will just be celebrity bullshit, some nerds, science geeks, and some people trying to get a literal who from 500 years ago famous fighting for their spot there.