Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[AprilRains]

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.

Yeah, we should totally ignore the pattern.

If all you're going to do is repeat the same stupid garbage, shut the fuck up.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

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.

No, it is definitely partisanship. They are more than willing to use politically charged terminology when talking about opposition to the point of using random blogs to justify the usage of pejoratives, while demanding a mainstream media source describe something with specific negative labels when dealing with leftist misbehavior.

 

[Kendall Motor Oil]

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.

I'd agree with you if it was 2012 but after seeing the "reliable sources" game being played by biased admins through Charlottesville, Gamergate, and the 2016 election, I have no hope outsiders will gain enough power to impose impartiality.

 

[Corpun]

I think it's also important to stress here that YOU, fellow kiwi, can change this and try to make Wikipedia more neutral.

Until all your edits get reverted because of bad soorcing or vandalism by the spergs who watch these pages like hawks. I swear they never sleep and pick up on even the most minor thing like adding an extra space somewhere in their 3000 page essay on how ancient greeks loved ladyboys or something.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Until all your edits get reverted because of bad soorcing or vandalism by the spergs who watch these pages like hawks. I swear they never sleep and pick up on even the most minor thing like adding an extra space somewhere in their 3000 page essay on how ancient greeks loved ladyboys or something.

Page ownership by shitlibs with too much time of their hands (see: Molly White) prevents any kind of Only You Can Prevent Wiki Bias movement. It's not a new idea to try it, people were fighting wikiwars in 07-08 over some of the same issues. If anything, this attitude is touchingly naive. If they sense that you want to correct the house opinion, you will be singled out and they may look for a pretense to ban you. Remember, to Wikipedians Wikipedia is just fine as is.

 

[WhiteNight]

I think it's also important to stress here that YOU, fellow kiwi, can change this and try to make Wikipedia more neutral.

Do you think this hasn't been tried a million times? The reason many people wind up in threads like this one is because they did try to go in and fix this stuff and got immediately smacked down.

 

[Tinfoil]

Until all your edits get reverted because of bad soorcing or vandalism by the spergs who watch these pages like hawks. I swear they never sleep and pick up on even the most minor thing like adding an extra space somewhere in their 3000 page essay on how ancient greeks loved ladyboys or something.

The have wikipedia bots which can be set up to monitor articles 24/7, and instantly revert a change. It's basically a soft protection, without having to admit you've protected the page.

 

[Saint Agustin]

The have wikipedia bots which can be set up to monitor articles 24/7, and instantly revert a change. It's basically a soft protection, without having to admit you've protected the page.

Yeah, can confirm about that cause 10 years ago I locked a specifc wiki page from edits due to massive trolling.

 

[306h4Ge5eJUJ]

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.

The entire point of having ten million bureaucratic rules is that you can selectively enforce them to get whatever result you want.

 

[Papa Pizzaria]

 

[Corpun]

Wanna hold off on this overeager wikipedia editors? I doubt the guy will die in under a week in his 40s and if he does you can add it later.

 

[lolcow yoghurt]

View attachment 3296892

The pharmaceutical companies definitely work for the public good! What do you mean by they are making sick people dependent on drugs and getting profit from this? You delusional conspiracy theorist antivaxxxer Republican!
We were together in this pandemic and the pharmaceutical companies helped us to recover. What do you mean by they couldn't even end the Ebola epidemic? Duh, you're antiscience bigot. This is what happens your mind, you start questioning the pharmaceutical companies, when you don't get your 45th booster shot.

 

[Papa Pizzaria]

Seriously, who's the idiot who thought "reliable sources" was a good idea? You can tell how that's gonna go from a mile away.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

View attachment 3296892

How is this any different than being critical of any 'big' group ie big oil, big tobacco, etc.? Everything said in that can be used to blunt criticism of basically any powerful corporation, government, or interest group. I don't personally harp on 'big pharma' much myself, but the whole thing reads like it was written by a lobbyist.

 

[whogoesthere]

I'd agree with you if it was 2012 but after seeing the "reliable sources" game being played by biased admins through Charlottesville, Gamergate, and the 2016 election, I have no hope outsiders will gain enough power to impose impartiality.

Its the mentality of people who still think wikipedia is free to edit by anyone. I suspect people who espouse this rubbish are either very ill-informed or in complete agreement with the idealogical purity that wikipedos expect.

Charlottesville was a real eye-opener for me, although outside of worthless shit like a bands EPs, I rarely used wikipedia. They would quote some womans blog if she said something like "all the white men were evil", but if major news organisations that have been around for close to a 100 years and sold internationally said something more balanced (dailymail tried, even if it is a pile of shit) and nope, not allowed. They are right wing and thus wrong, so only left wing is allowed to be true.

 

[AnOminous]

Its the mentality of people who still think wikipedia is free to edit by anyone.

It's true, though, you can have any outlook you like and still edit there. You don't have to be a Marxist-Leninist. We even tolerate plain old Marxists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and Stalinists and Maoists and even Hoxhaists! We have the greatest diversity ever!

Not Posadists, though, fuck those guys.

 

[Kendall Motor Oil]

And no Strasserites. Traitors.

 

[Shmuel "Sam" Coinsniffer]

Not Posadists, though, fuck those guys.

I know you wrote that as a joke, but contrary to the common belief, Posadists still exist. In fact they recently had a pro-Russian rally in UK.

There's this conventional wisdom that nobody picks the craziest belief just to have something to talk about in the dinner table, and that even belief in Flat Earth fullfills some personal need. Well, I have come to doubt it: There are a lot of bored people who intentionally pick a fringe belief to be more interesting. There was a pretty active Wikimedia Commons user who converted from Posadism to Christian Anarchism. Essentially converted from fringe of the fringe to fringe of the fringe. There is a posadist user template, even. There was also a user literally called "Posadist". So that makes at least a few confirmed Posadists I've come across in Wikipedia.

/spergout

 

[Churros con Manteca]

Wanna hold off on this overeager wikipedia editors? I doubt the guy will die in under a week in his 40s and if he does you can add it later.
View attachment 3296911
View attachment 3296910

He has now reigned longer than a week so... Long live the King!

 

[Least Concern]

I know you wrote that as a joke, but contrary to the common belief, Posadists still exist. In fact they recently had a pro-Russian rally in UK.

There's this conventional wisdom that nobody picks the craziest belief just to have something to talk about in the dinner table, and that even belief in Flat Earth fullfills some personal need. Well, I have come to doubt it: There are a lot of bored people who intentionally pick a fringe belief to be more interesting. There was a pretty active Wikimedia Commons user who converted from Posadism to Christian Anarchism. Essentially converted from fringe of the fringe to fringe of the fringe. There is a posadist user template, even. There was also a user literally called "Posadist". So that makes at least a few confirmed Posadists I've come across in Wikipedia.

/spergout

tf is Posadism? Let's search that, and scroll past RationalWiki and Wikipedia…

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Posadism

A branch of authoritarian communism (more specifically trotskyism) pioneered by J. Posadas, an Argentinian Trotskyist, which believes that a nuclear war will trigger a global proletarian revolution, causing all nations on the planet to become socialist. Posadism is also known for its theories about UFOs, specifically about how only a communist society could become so advanced as to achieve space travel, therefore if any aliens were to visit earth they would be communist. The third aspect of posadism, often referenced in memes, is dolphins. The claim is that posadists also believe that humans could theoretically communicate with dolphins, seeing them as an intelligent and developed enough species, only somehow we are prevented from doing so by capitalism. Sources for this are unclear.

https://xaviernewswire.com/2019/09/11/why-im-a-posadist-and-you-should-be-too/

As leftists, we must put aside the fear of a war forced upon us by the bourgeoisie, for no socialist country was ever born without revolution. War is not the end for us. In fact, war will be a second chance if the hegemonic systems are destroyed. Currently, we have the means to eliminate all capitalist countries from the face of the Earth with nuclear weaponry. Additionally, it is the bourgeoisie who fear nuclear war the most. After their private property and capital are rendered worthless following war, they will bury themselves alive in nuclear bunkers.

Conversely, the working class will be affected the least. After the bourgeoisie are deposed, the working class will be free to pursue their own interests.

…Jesus. I'm pretty sure nukes will atomize the proles just as well as the bougies.