Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

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...
The point is that there is a ridiculously obvious bias, to the point of being blatant on-the-nose propaganda, of how every Republican mentioned - and none of the Democrats - have their actions scrutinized and ridiculed in some way. Which obviously hightlights how the site is disingenuous in presenting itself as an impartial encyclopedia.

And as for the Ghost of Kyiv article, that screencap was taken just today, almost three months after the hoax began. Here's an archive of a more contemporaneous version of the page:
early march.png
Which as you can see is far more forgiving to the hoax even though it was obvious bunk from the get-go. Again, a clear bias from the editors hoping that is was true in lieu of any reason. You can even see the backup cope; "well even if he isn't real he felt real to the Ukrainians" which is the exact opposite content to what the site supposedly is about.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Da Capo, BlueSpark, UnsufficentBoobage and 2 others
Idiot Asshole said:
The point is that there is a ridiculously obvious bias, to the point of being blatant on-the-nose propaganda, of how every Republican mentioned - and none of the Democrats - have their actions scrutinized and ridiculed in some way. Which obviously hightlights how the site is disingenuous in presenting itself as an impartial encyclopedia.
Click to expand...
Except the Texas article has removed all but the mention of Ted Cruz' comments in its current version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Elementary_School_shooting#Responses

EDIT: nevermind, they kept the part about social media commenting on Cruz, just moved it a few paragraphs down. The Gosar part at least is gone though
 
Nick Nock said:
Except the Texas article has removed all but the mention of Ted Cruz' comments in its current version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Elementary_School_shooting#Responses

EDIT: nevermind, they kept the part about social media commenting on Cruz, just moved it a few paragraphs down. The Gosar part at least is gone though
Click to expand...
The Cruz comment has been moved into a section that has been added since I made my posts yesterday which is basically just gun control advocacy. (a)
gun control.png
That last bit though. "underscored the fact that the vast majority of Americans supports more robust background checks in connection with firearms purchasing" with Politifact as the source. This is just obvious politicking and should not belong in what is ostensibly a dry, informative resource. If you're going to inject your personal point of view into something at least make it subtle, these lazy idiots can't even do that. Sloppy and sad.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: BlueSpark, Flaming Insignias and AprilRains
Idiot Asshole said:
That last bit though. "underscored the fact that the vast majority of Americans supports more robust background checks in connection with firearms purchasing" with Politifact as the source. This is just obvious politicking and should not belong in what is ostensibly a dry, informative resource. If you're going to inject your personal point of view into something at least make it subtle, these lazy idiots can't even do that. Sloppy and sad.
Click to expand...
Does the Politifact article get anything wrong?
 
0Chance said:
Something I didn't know about. Molly White is the main contributor to the wikipedia page on KiwiFarms.

View attachment 3323757
Click to expand...

It's like a rouge's gallery of Wikipedia's worst editors. JzG in particular was a major shithead but doesn't act as cowish as Molly does. He is the one the last holdouts of the cabal from the 06-08 period, most of whom are inactive or dead (SlimVirgin).

A sample of recent edits -

Screenshot from 2022-05-27 00-18-00.png
Screenshot from 2022-05-27 00-21-23.png


JzG functions as a kind of 'right wing watch' user, just like Molly, but he went inactive again last year. Pick any hot button topic/group leftists are obsessed with and Molly White will be all over it, often the main editor/overseer/owner.

In fact, JzG was a great representative of the typical Wikipedia liberal then - obsessed with his enemies or whatever was meme-y on the right, I remember he used to also edit 'Contradictions of the Bible' and other fedora written Wiki articles. The George W. Bush presidency really had a profound impact on them, so I think fedora atheism was stronger than the current bunch like Molly (who seem more apathetic and ignorant about religion than openly hating).
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Corpun, Da Capo, as a latinx i and 10 others
H3LLH4MM3R666 said:
Does the Politifact article get anything wrong?
Click to expand...
Yeah the whole stricter gun control measures is preferred by 53% of Americans is not a vast majority and that more or less collapses when surveys ask about specific policy proposals its pure agitprop plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Da Capo, 7th Dweller of Da'at, scathefire and 2 others
JJLiautaud said:
Yeah the whole stricter gun control measures is preferred by 53% of Americans is not a vast majority and that more or less collapses when surveys ask about specific policy proposals its pure agitprop plain and simple.
Click to expand...
And a single stat isn't an accurate depiction. Activists will cite a single stat in such a generic way in hopes the reader will make the assumption the writer wants. In this case, support for "gun control" measures of any kind introduced by the approved political movements.

0Chance said:
I'd be highly suspicious of anything Politifact says.
View attachment 3325505
Click to expand...
Iirc, snopes or politifact fact checked the 13/50 FBI stat or something close to it. They labeled it as misleading or untrue and proceeded to nitpick the actual stat is a few percentage points different in the latest FBI release despite the reference being for years prior.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: BlaireWhitesBottom, Toolbox, UnsufficentBoobage and 3 others
0Chance said:
I'd be highly suspicious of anything Politifact says.
View attachment 3325505
Click to expand...
PolitiFact is pretty bad, but these fact checks include some explanation: Bernie says Amazon is paying no federal income tax, whereas Trump seems to be saying no taxes of any kind (corporate, sales), and also that they are a monopoly.

OTOH, Trump's short tweet is not elaborated and is open to interpretation; he may have been speaking about the same issue in his typically abbreviated way. PolitiFact will always interpret Trump as uncharitably as possible.

This blog is pretty good: https://www.politifactbias.com/
 
  • Informative
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Flaming Insignias, scathefire and 1 other person
I noticed Places in Harry Potter has one of those railway diagrams to show the link between Hogwarts and Platform 9 ¾.

Screenshot 2022-05-28 at 13.27.15.jpg

I deplore JK Rowling's lack of imagination for transport infrastructure, but really, that's all there is to it. If there are any other stations, branch lines, viaducts, tunnels or sidings for the Hogwarts Express, they are never once mentioned in pages and pages of books and supplementary material.

But that didn't stop some Wikipedian train nerd from documenting it anyway:

Screenshot 2022-05-28 at 13.29.57.png


For context, there are plenty of real-world train lines with literally only two stops that have far more detailed diagrams than this one:

Screenshot 2022-05-28 at 13.47.27.pngScreenshot 2022-05-28 at 13.46.55.png
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Da Capo, dumb idiot, Flaming Insignias and 6 others
There are so many "timelines" about Russian interference in the 2016 election that there is a meta-article for them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...ssian_interference_in_United_States_elections

There is even a sub-meta-article, for investigation timelines.

Most timeline articles include an alphabetized "dictionary" at the top with a list of names and places mentioned.

The spergiest has to be Topical timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, where there are sections with a separate timeline for each so-called topic. There is one for the ominous Trump Tower meeting, focus of many conspiracy theories; for the Steele dossier, which is almost totally uninformative; and several for individual or groups of people (such as Carter Page). There is a section for "Brexit, Farage, Banks and Wigmore"; no clear relevance to Russia, primarily random stuff like this:
tl1.png

tl2.png


The timelines themselves are filled with lovingly compiled irrelevant minutiae:
tl3.png

tl6.png

tl5.png

tl4.png


The "timeline" goes back to 1987:
tl7.png


This article is shorter than it used to be because the Maria Butina timeline was moved into her own massive article.
 
  • Informative
  • Lunacy
  • Political Sperging
Reactions: Dig20, Norman B. Normal, Da Capo and 11 others
  • Lunacy
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Blatant hypocrite, Pencilvester, blackpilled bird and 23 others
 
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: SoyBoyCaliphate, Jonah Hill poster, Dolomite and 13 others
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonah Hill poster, Dolomite, Flaming Insignias and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back