Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Tinfoil]

It's crazy seeing how bad Wikipedia has gone down the toilet. Today one of Wikipedia's "Did you know..." features this:

If your first question is who? Then you're not alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Christian_Siriano_gown_of_Billy_PorterView attachment 3281076

Probably where the suggestion came from:

 

[Flaming Insignias]

Thanks @ZACKIE for finding this.

Waukesha is still not declared a terrorist attack as of this time because of "reliable sources"

 

[Sparkling Yuzu]

In 1610, Henry IV was stabbed to death by a Catholic fanatic

Is it just me or does that seem like a biased way to describe it? I'm not educated in the scholarly way to describe this but this just doesn't sound right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsieur_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans

https://archive.ph/wip/zPmBp

 

[Flaming Insignias]

View attachment 3287840
Is it just me or does that seem like a biased way to describe it? I'm not educated in the scholarly way to describe this but this just doesn't sound right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsieur_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans

https://archive.ph/wip/zPmBp

Every article describes Francois Ravaillac as a Catholic zealot, and for relatively good reason: he killed Henry IV (a Protestant that converted to Catholicism out of political necessity) for granting freedom of religion to the Huguenots rather than forcing conversion or death. That sounds like a radical papist to me.

 

[Sparkling Yuzu]

Every article describes Francois Ravaillac as a Catholic zealot, and for relatively good reason: he killed Henry IV (a Protestant that converted to Catholicism out of political necessity) for granting freedom of religion to the Huguenots rather than forcing conversion or death. That sounds like a radical papist to me.

Interesting. Fanatic just sounds weird to me, radical papist sounds a lot better. Fanatic makes it sound like a plain crazy person, Alex Jones schizo type while radical papist actually describes a religious motive. Like if someone with radical political beliefs was described as a "communist fanatic", it atomizes them in a "lone crazy" narrative and artificially puts them outside of the religious/political movements of the time.

 

[Corpun]

Every article describes Francois Ravaillac as a Catholic zealot, and for relatively good reason: he killed Henry IV (a Protestant that converted to Catholicism out of political necessity) for granting freedom of religion to the Huguenots rather than forcing conversion or death. That sounds like a radical papist to me.

Do they do the same with the guy who assassinated Willem of Oranje?

Thanks @ZACKIE for finding this.
View attachment 3287746
Waukesha is still not declared a terrorist attack as of this time because of "reliable sources"
View attachment 3287748

The DC Stabbing that NOI guy is also not terrorism I'm willing to bet.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

Do they do the same with the guy who assassinated Willem of Oranje?

The description of that assassin focuses mostly on his actual attack and the fact that it was the first time a monarch was assassinated by gunshot. Of course, it's harder to argue that the motivation was primarily about religion rather than the hefty bounty the Habsburgs had placed on William's head, so it's hard to call the assassin a religious zealot without journal entries indicating as such.

The DC Stabbing that NOI guy is also not terrorism I'm willing to bet.

The Waukesha article goes so far as to peddle the bullshit “fleeing violence” claim Brooks ran to claim he dindu nuffin while not making a single reference to him espousing black supremacist rhetoric online or referencing the possibility of revenge for Kyle getting off. Really shows how Wikipedo stands in regards posting the facts when important details are ignored because they don't consider the evidence to be from “reliable sources”

 

[discombobulate]

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.

There's something close but it's not prominent: the Village Pump, specifically the miscellaneous. There is also the Teahouse for helping and retaining newer users. I wouldn't be surprised if there's lulzy stuff in those but the archives are probably massive; I've never looked at them myself.

For most experienced users it's assumed that editors just use their friend's talk pages if it's off-topic or project pages for on-topic useful tidbits and discussion. A long while back there was a glut of users using WP almost like social media, mostly mucking about in user spaces but they were hated by normal editors because WP is serious business.

I do not think that an off-topic discussion board that's prominent is a good idea. Most wikipedos are not normal, to say the least, and many are extremely abrasive. The closest they really get to socializing en masse is through Arbcom/ANI shit and those often end up as ridiculous train wrecks.

 

[WhiteNight]

This Article about some rando republican is dripping with seethe and bias.

Half of the articles about any Republican are like this.

Elise Stefanik:

She objected to the votes when the electoral college met. Sure, it was "after" the Capitol riots. It was also "after" a lot of other things. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Paul Gosar:

These "alleged ties" in the intro to the article are incredibly flimsy. Gosar never denied the Holocaust, so this is just smear. One could similarly "tie" Ilhan Omar to Islamic terrorism.

Steve King did not defend white nationalism; that's another lie. But, in any case, two people being at the same event doesn't mean anything, and there is no reason to add King's views and history to Gosar's article.

Lauren Boebert:

When you scroll down to see what this "support" is, it's a bunch of nothing, such as objecting to the word "insurrection" to describe the incident.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Half of the articles about any Republican are like this.

Elise Stefanik:
View attachment 3288703
She objected to the votes when the electoral college met. Sure, it was "after" the Capitol riots. It was also "after" a lot of other things. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.


Lauren Boebert:
View attachment 3288761
When you scroll down to see what this "support" is, it's a bunch of nothing, such as objecting to the word "insurrection" to describe the incident.

At one point, they were putting objecting to the 2020 electoral vote count in the introduction to every member of Congress who did so (we're talking well over 100 members) as though it were among the most notable things they've done.

Any article about a current American national political figure is bound to be bad, For Republicans, they read more like a random list of things shitlibs disapprove of them over.

 

[Corpun]

At one point, they were putting objecting to the 2020 electoral vote count in the introduction to every member of Congress who did so (we're talking well over 100 members) as though it were among the most notable things they've done.

Any article about a current American national political figure is bound to be bad, For Republicans, they read more like a random list of things shitlibs disapprove of them over.

And the sad thing is more than half these pages are locked so only the right people can smear literal who Republican from who gives a fuck constituency as a white supremacist nationalist who supports terrorism and hates democracy because of the usual semantics wikipedia uses.

 

[Tinfoil]

The Waukesha article goes so far as to peddle the bullshit “fleeing violence” claim Brooks ran to claim he dindu nuffin while not making a single reference to him espousing black supremacist rhetoric online or referencing the possibility of revenge for Kyle getting off. Really shows how Wikipedo stands in regards posting the facts when important details are ignored because they don't consider the evidence to be from “reliable sources”

Every time you try to complain to the admins about bias of sources or undue weight in article, they will quickly point you to the complaints board to try and get the very people who made the rules on consensus and approved sources, to change them, so it doesn't benefit their ideology and worldview. lol like they are going to admit to themselves they are biased. They think they are the reasonable ones.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

And the sad thing is more than half these pages are locked so only the right people can smear literal who Republican from who gives a fuck constituency as a white supremacist nationalist who supports terrorism and hates democracy because of the usual semantics wikipedia uses.

Part of the reason they are able to get away with doing it is that there is a kind of feedback loop with how equally unhinged 'reliable sources' have become since 2016. WaPo and NYT started to discard out the tattered remains of any semblance of standards, already becoming an endangered species, Wikipedia political writers have permission in essence to do likewise. In a way, I don't understand what the purpose is with a post 91 US politics rule for editing. It couldn't get any worse or more borderline slanderous. What exactly is that rule supposed to be helping?

 

[WhiteNight]

At one point, they were putting objecting to the 2020 electoral vote count in the introduction to every member of Congress who did so (we're talking well over 100 members) as though it were among the most notable things they've done.

Even Ted Cruz's has it in his intro, even though he is notable for far more:

And there it is again: "after" the "attack" (implying a connection). Also, what political and popular backlash? I don't remember any.

There's a whole article with a list.

 

[Corpun]

Even Ted Cruz's has it in his intro, even though he is notable for far more:
View attachment 3290684
And there it is again: "after" the "attack" (implying a connection). Also, what political and popular backlash? I don't remember any.

There's a whole article with a list.
View attachment 3290660

Used by scholars? Sorry but don't scholars have a 20 year rule before they can study anything in a historical context?

I guess ethics have been entirely thrown out the window and fed to the dogs.

 

[Maricón de Mierda]

The transracial editors are slowly growing in number... Melefors now also identifies as one.

Melofors is a minor.

He's 16 years old. He joined Wikipedia at 11. He started editing "good" at 13. Here are his contributions:

They range from geographical locations to TikTok memes to several Minecraft-related topics. Incidentally, having read the "Islam in Maryland" Wikipedia page, I can conclude there is no reason for an "Islam in Maryland" Wikipedia page to exist.

Here are his accolades for editing Wikipedia:


He got these accolades because he helped get the "2b2t" page to Good Article status.

Spoiler: What is 2b2t?

2builders2tools (2b2t) is a Minecraft server founded in December 2010. 2b2t is the oldest anarchy server[a] in Minecraft, as well as one of the oldest running Minecraft servers of any variety. Additionally, 2b2t's world is one of the longest-running server maps in the game, which has never been reset since its creation. As the server has virtually no rules or authority, griefing and hacking are common amongst players, with no risk of getting banned. The server is permanently set to hard difficulty and player versus player combat is enabled throughout. The server has seen over 724,000 players explore its procedurally generated map, increasing its file size to over 13.3 terabytes.[9] 2b2t has been described in news media as the worst Minecraft server due to its playerbase and culture.

Also, if you were curious, there are 9 different Minecraft servers that have their own Wikipedia pages.

Melofors is a minor, has been editing Wikipedia for a third of his life, plays Minecraft probably on the 2b2t server amongst others, has his personal Discord account publicly listed, comes from a Muslim family, is named Hasan, is an Experienced Editor, and is transracial.

 

[Corpun]

Melofors is a minor.
View attachment 3291419
He's 16 years old. He joined Wikipedia at 11. He started editing "good" at 13. Here are his contributions:
View attachment 3291426
They range from geographical locations to TikTok memes to several Minecraft-related topics. Incidentally, having read the "Islam in Maryland" Wikipedia page, I can conclude there is no reason for an "Islam in Maryland" Wikipedia page to exist.

Here are his accolades for editing Wikipedia:

View attachment 3291433
He got these accolades because he helped get the "2b2t" page to Good Article status.

Spoiler: What is 2b2t?

2builders2tools (2b2t) is a Minecraft server founded in December 2010. 2b2t is the oldest anarchy server[a] in Minecraft, as well as one of the oldest running Minecraft servers of any variety. Additionally, 2b2t's world is one of the longest-running server maps in the game, which has never been reset since its creation. As the server has virtually no rules or authority, griefing and hacking are common amongst players, with no risk of getting banned. The server is permanently set to hard difficulty and player versus player combat is enabled throughout. The server has seen over 724,000 players explore its procedurally generated map, increasing its file size to over 13.3 terabytes.[9] 2b2t has been described in news media as the worst Minecraft server due to its playerbase and culture.

Also, if you were curious, there are 9 different Minecraft servers that have their own Wikipedia pages.

Melofors is a minor, has been editing Wikipedia for a third of his life, plays Minecraft probably on the 2b2t server amongst others, has his personal Discord account publicly listed, comes from a Muslim family, is named Hasan, is an Experienced Editor, and is transracial.

People say don't let your kids on 4chan, what they should be saying is don't let your kids be Wikipedia editors.

No Christianity in Maryland, or Islam in Michigan either, and you think there would be since Deerborn is considered the Islamic center of America.

 

[Gilgamesh]

The description of that assassin focuses mostly on his actual attack and the fact that it was the first time a monarch was assassinated by gunshot. Of course, it's harder to argue that the motivation was primarily about religion rather than the hefty bounty the Habsburgs had placed on William's head, so it's hard to call the assassin a religious zealot without journal entries indicating as such.

The Waukesha article goes so far as to peddle the bullshit “fleeing violence” claim Brooks ran to claim he dindu nuffin while not making a single reference to him espousing black supremacist rhetoric online or referencing the possibility of revenge for Kyle getting off. Really shows how Wikipedo stands in regards posting the facts when important details are ignored because they don't consider the evidence to be from “reliable sources”

Wikipedia's sourcing policy is the big problem. I wouldn't go so far to say or imply that things like Waukesha not being labelled a terrorist attack is evidence that Wikipedia editors have an extreme racial bias towards people of color, as they have labelled black supremacists attacks as terrorism before. Instead some editors are just so autistic that they have to enforce the reliable source policy to a tee, sometimes creating a unintended view of bias towards black people (and it doesn't help that these editors are the most active). You could go on and say that this is because reliable media sources don't report on non-white domestic terrorist attacks as often as those carried out by white supremacists, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I think it's also important to stress here that YOU, fellow kiwi, can change this and try to make Wikipedia more neutral. There have been numerous talk pages like Waukesha's arguing over information that needs a reliable source, and most of the time that information HAS been reported by a reliable source, just the people arguing about it are too lazy to look it up and include it in the article. It's fun to sit and laugh and all the dumb shit that goes on at Wikipedia, but you can't deny that the idea of an endless online encyclopedia is pivotal to our digital age and anyone, including you, has the ability to make it better.

 

[AprilRains]

Wikipedia's sourcing policy is the big problem. I wouldn't go so far to say or imply that things like Waukesha not being labelled a terrorist attack is evidence that Wikipedia editors have an extreme racial bias towards people of color, as they have labelled black supremacists attacks as terrorism before. Instead some editors are just so autistic that they have to enforce the reliable source policy to a tee, sometimes creating a unintended view of bias towards black people (and it doesn't help that these editors are the most active). You could go on and say that this is because reliable media sources don't report on non-white domestic terrorist attacks as often as those carried out by white supremacists, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I think it's also important to stress here that YOU, fellow kiwi, can change this and try to make Wikipedia more neutral. There have been numerous talk pages like Waukesha's arguing over information that needs a reliable source, and most of the time that information HAS been reported by a reliable source, just the people arguing about it are too lazy to look it up and include it in the article. It's fun to sit and laugh and all the dumb shit that goes on at Wikipedia, but you can't deny that the idea of an endless online encyclopedia is pivotal to our digital age and anyone, including you, has the ability to make it better.

Yeah, the numerous examples in this thread of an overwhelming political bias in the use and enforcement of that policy just don't matter.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Yeah, the numerous examples in this thread of an overwhelming political bias in the use and enforcement of that policy just don't matter.

I'm not saying that doesn't exist, I'm saying don't be quick to judge an editor's actions as being fueled by political bias, when it could be a systemic fault of Wikipedia's rules on sourcing, or just plain incompetence.