Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, lolcow yoghurt, Maricón de Mierda and 5 others
Kiwi Boer said:
Someone created a Chris-Chan article on Simple English Wikipedia
https://archive.ph/ggkog
but it has recently been deleted:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...etion/Requests/2022/Christine_Weston_Chandler
https://archive.ph/Drgqy
(even though it was two votes delete and two keep; I would take it up to deletion review but I don't want to call attention to myself).
Apparently Molly White was not involved this time.
Click to expand...
They were even nice enough to call Chris by his Tomgirl name, and they still insist on deleting it. What a shame *sigh*(:_(
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: woowie queen, lolcow yoghurt, Churros con Manteca and 2 others
Papa Pizzaria said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia has this strange paradox where they are both themselves biased due to the editor cliques and are biased because of their autistic choices for sourcing. Look at any current era topic and the sources will pretty much all be media articles, which of course have their own biases, and due to the rules they have on sourcing articles, will all be of one slant.

Compare that to some literal who from a thousand years ago and you will see academic sources.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Strange Wilderness, lolcow yoghurt and 2 others
Neigh said:
The Wuhan Flu had so much peer reviewed research countering government narratives but don't qualify as reliable sources or are removed via rules lawyering..... for some reason. 🤔
Global Warming Climate Change Crisis is similar.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Compare the sourcing in the Holocaust to the Jan 6  coup  revolt Insurrection.

The difference is massive. Granted Jan 6 has no academic papers yet and when it will they will be partisan as shit but the point still stands.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Flaming Insignias
Corpun said:
Wikipedia has this strange paradox where they are both themselves biased due to the editor cliques and are biased because of their autistic choices for sourcing. Look at any current era topic and the sources will pretty much all be media articles, which of course have their own biases, and due to the rules they have on sourcing articles, will all be of one slant.

Compare that to some literal who from a thousand years ago and you will see academic sources.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly while reading through the rules of Wikipedia years ago. Ah here it is...

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
Click to expand...
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Positron, Flaming Insignias and Corpun
Save the Loli said:
en.wikipedia.org

Croatian Wikipedia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So is this an actual case of a local Wikipedia doing the opposite of what English Wikipedia does or is it the usual exaggerations and distortions as evidenced by the frequent use of buzzwords like "Nazi" and "far-right?"
Click to expand...
It sounds like Croatian Wiki really did have a more conservative circle of leadership back in the day, but the problem is that the news about it primarily comes from Serbians and rainbow-fuckers, who use the Ustashe as a boogeyman on par with the Klan and Nazis to bash Croatian nationalism and the Catholic Church. I would wager that at least some of that bias was about hr.wikipedia not going along with every piece of Holocaust torture porn brought up by the Serbs, because somehow Serbia treats the Holocaust as even more sacred to them than the Jews do.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: JJLiautaud and Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL
SUCK MY DICK, PC POLICE.

Seriously, who the fuck was ever offended by the monkeys in the fucking Jungle Book outside of overly sensitive panty wastes looking to get offended by everything under the yellow sun!? Hell, Walt Disney deliberately cast a white guy, Louis Prima, as King Louie instead of his first choice, Louis Armstrong, specifically so as to not come off as racist. But to some people flesh piles, everything is racist, or whatever crime against the "marginalized" group of the day.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Dolomite, Da Capo, Pissmaster and 5 others
Fat Tub of Lard said:
SUCK MY DICK, PC POLICE.

Seriously, who the fuck was ever offended by the monkeys in the fucking Jungle Book outside of overly sensitive panty wastes looking to get offended by everything under the yellow sun!?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so you'll have to remind me. In what way were the orangutans "seen as a racist caricature of black Americans"? Did they rob convenience stores, have fatherless children, and gorge on purple drank?

However, I don't fault Wikipedia for having this section; Disney really did this retarded thing and it's worth mentioning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: z0mb0 and Positron
WhiteNight said:
I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so you'll have to remind me. In what way were the orangutans "seen as a racist caricature of black Americans"? Did they rob convenience stores, have fatherless children, and gorge on purple drank?

However, I don't fault Wikipedia for having this section; Disney really did this retarded thing and it's worth mentioning.
Click to expand...
Believe me, it's a lot stupider than that. King Louie kidnaps Mowgli in order to wring the secrets of "a man's red fire", because he wants to rise up and become more like a human. I generally took this at face value, as did 90% of the people who watched it, including 99.99999% of kids, possibly thinking they wanted to pull a Planet of the Apes-style monkey uprising. Which was likely Walt and company's intention in the first place (minus the monkey uprising thing). But apparently, when certain...sensitive people, for lack of a better term, watch the scene, they see King Louie and the monkeys (yes, monkeys, not all fucking orangutans) and they see black people, which if anything, says a lot more about them than it does about the movie.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Dolomite, Da Capo, UnsufficentBoobage and 4 others
WhiteNight said:
I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so you'll have to remind me. In what way were the orangutans "seen as a racist caricature of black Americans"? Did they rob convenience stores, have fatherless children, and gorge on purple drank?

However, I don't fault Wikipedia for having this section; Disney really did this retarded thing and it's worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

It's more the fact that the monkeys all speak in stereotypical jive, play jazz, and then sing a song "I Want to be Like You" which has some implications given the jazz/jive feel of the character.

It's just dated rather than racist, more understandably objectionable than the Dumbo crows, still nowhere near anything Warner Bros was putting out.

Honestly as long as they're not splicing it up like Fantasia, or locking it away like Song of the South I don't think there is anything wrong with leaving little note that some people might be offended. Though listing why that is and the culture surrounding the film would be way more informative than going "Hurr durr racism."

Agree on this not really being a Wikipedia issue though, listing objections to media, no matter how stupid, is something worth adding to an entry.


Edit: Read a bit more on King Louie since I was about to say that it's not wrong to fault people for seeing a black man when he is clearly modeled on Louie Armstrong. However looking at his Wikipedia page I discovered that he was specifically cast by a white man to avoid controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Louie

While childhood me still made that connection and saw him as a black jazz singer, and that is still clearly the inspiration I find this whole situation much funnier now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Dolomite, Da Capo, UnsufficentBoobage and 5 others
WhiteNight said:
I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so you'll have to remind me. In what way were the orangutans "seen as a racist caricature of black Americans"? Did they rob convenience stores, have fatherless children, and gorge on purple drank?

However, I don't fault Wikipedia for having this section; Disney really did this retarded thing and it's worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

Here's the first half of the scene.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Crabouse-united, Flaming Insignias and 1 other person
Fat Tub of Lard said:
they see King Louie and the monkeys (yes, monkeys, not all fucking orangutans) and they see black people, which if anything, says a lot more about them than it does about the movie.
Click to expand...
I'll never forget during the BLM autism storm when they removed some monkey mascot from some cereal as it was somehow racist against black people. If you see a monkey and for any reason think "Oh, that's a black person!" whether you're offended or not...it sure does say a lot about them, as you said.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Dolomite, Da Capo, Pills and 3 others
Lone Star said:
I'll never forget during the BLM autism storm when they removed some monkey mascot from some cereal as it was somehow racist against black people. If you see a monkey and for any reason think "Oh, that's a black person!" whether you're offended or not...it sure does say a lot about them, as you said.
Click to expand...
How about eating a banana in the presence of black people?

bananas.png
 
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Oats12345, Dolomite, Bagger 293 and 8 others
I accidentally stumbled onto the page for the recent school shooting in Texas and saw this:
repubs r dum.png
Yes, this objective encyclopedia needs you to know that Republicans are always evil, dumb and stupid, and it will even find the most tenuous connections to ensure that you know that. With reliable sources, of course.

Naturally, my mind strayed to the current quagmire in Ukraine, and I looked up the article for the notorious (and since debunked) flat-out propaganda that was the Ghost of Kyiv™. Funny enough, something was missing....
ghost of kyyiivv~.png

If you have a life and aren't autistic enough to keep up with current events and gayslapfights between political figures on social media, let me post this infamous tweet that went viral:
219.png

...which was mocked by the man who is probably the most viewed figure on cable news, Cucker Tarlson:


And yet despite being mocked on widespread level that it was featured on one of the most-watched television shows in the US (along with others) is completely absent from the Wikipedia page. I guess because it isn't encyclopedic enough.
 
  • Informative
  • Political Sperging
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Hubelublub, Sparkling Yuzu, Positron and 9 others
Idiot Asshole said:
Naturally, my mind strayed to the current quagmire in Ukraine, and I looked up the article for the notorious (and since debunked) flat-out propaganda that was the Ghost of Kyiv™. Funny enough, something was missing....
View attachment 3318734

If you have a life and aren't autistic enough to keep up with current events and gayslapfights between political figures on social media, let me post this infamous tweet that went viral:
View attachment 3318751

...which was mocked by the man who is probably the most viewed figure on cable news, Cucker Tarlson:
View attachment 3318756

And yet despite being mocked on widespread level that it was featured on one of the most-watched television shows in the US (along with others) is completely absent from the Wikipedia page. I guess because it isn't encyclopedic enough.
Click to expand...
I think the Ghost of Kyiv article adequately gets across that it's propaganda and an urban legend (the opening on google literally says it's fictitious). It also mentions the Sam Hyde hoax right down there in the legacy section, and if you're complaining that some pages have too much of an anti-republican bias, why are you complaining that the Tucker Carlson goof was left out? Someone putting up the wrong picture on a boomer talk show probably shouldn't get a mention in an encyclopedia, but then again I don't think the Sam Hyde line should either.
 
  • Political Sperging
Reactions: BlaireWhitesBottom
Gilgamesh said:
I think the Ghost of Kyiv article adequately gets across that it's propaganda and an urban legend (the opening on google literally says it's fictitious). It also mentions the Sam Hyde hoax right down there in the legacy section, and if you're complaining that some pages have too much of an anti-republican bias, why are you complaining that the Tucker Carlson goof was left out? Someone putting up the wrong picture on a boomer talk show probably shouldn't get a mention in an encyclopedia, but then again I don't think the Sam Hyde line should either.
Click to expand...
That's not what @Idiot Asshole said was missing. Why don't you ask more questions and shill less?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back