Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[AnOminous]

When I was much younger I did a lot of grammatical and spelling edits there. Think it was the few months after residency, I had nothing but time.

I used to do this, but now I just laugh at illiteracy and solecisms because I want the place to look as amateurish and shitty as possible to the point it's even more obviously not a trustworthy source, more just a garbage dump for nonfunctional autists.

At least some of the older stuff that these freaks don't care about is still okay.

 

[RobertDole]

We all know about wiki's official policy of MOS:GENDERID. That is, pre-transition names can't be mentioned unless the person was previously "notable". Aka, the name is almost always banned and inclusion is completely arbitrary and subject to the whims of a few admins (just see the talk page of Rachel Levine).

As far as I can tell there's still no rule against including the fact that someone is trans or adding various transgender tags to an article... yet. Since they've gone from "deadnaming is hate speech" to "trans women are women" to just "women are women" banning this seems like the next logical step.

Has this popped up anywhere yet? Anyone else think might happen soon? Going to enjoy the endless edit wars.

 

[Hồ Chí Minh]

obviously not a trustworthy source, more just a garbage dump for nonfunctional autists.

So basically like KiwiFarms?

 

[AnOminous]

So basically like KiwiFarms?

We don't call ourselves an encyclopedia and nobody would expect to be able to cite us without getting flunked, unless maybe it was a Retard Studies course of some time and as an example of evil nawtzees on the "dark web."

 

[WhiteNight]

As far as I can tell there's still no rule against including the fact that someone is trans or adding various transgender tags to an article... yet. Since they've gone from "deadnaming is hate speech" to "trans women are women" to just "women are women" banning this seems like the next logical step.

This isn't far from the current situation. Troons who are not "out" are not thus identified, one example being our own lolcow Brianna Wu (the article also repeats the doubtful claim that he was adopted based I suppose on his word). The talk page has numerous redacted edits, probably mostly to suppress this information. There may be an explicit rule against outing?

In any case, birth names are clearly encylopedic, especially when public knowledge as with Levine, and nearly every other article includes them even when the person was not notable under the old name, for example Lorne Michaels or Cat Stevens or Judy Garland or Albert Brooks or George Michael. Although, Zoe Quinn's identity is of course protected.

And don't even get me started on the Public Universal Friend, but at least efforts to purge her name have so far been fought off.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

. Although, Zoe Quinn's identity is of course protected..

The talk page is pretty sparse, what's the stated rationale for this? If Chelsea is notable enough for an article, wouldn't you want to have her birth name?

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

Public Universal Friend had literal brain damage

 

[WhiteNight]

The talk page is pretty sparse, what's the stated rationale for this? If Chelsea is notable enough for an article, wouldn't you want to have her birth name?

The last major discussion was in 2017:

There was an earlier discussion in 2016. And that was far from the first. For instance, in 2015 it was stated that there was already a policy of hiding her name:

Her talk page is protected, and all mentions of her real name are quickly redacted.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

The last major discussion was in 2017::

Her talk page is protected, and all mentions of her real name are quickly redacted.

Even more telling is the discussion just above it where they are jumping through hoops to find a justification for not including it. They claim it's because no reliable source says it and then someone points out that the Boston Globe did, it suddenly is about well it needs to be several reliable sources. Then one of them claims because she identifies as non-binary that is now an excuse to not include it, because as we know Wikipedia gives special protection for anything that touches troons.

Got that? Wikipedians are all about 'valor', yeah sure.

Then they play word games with well it doesn't say 'birth name' it says 'formerly known as' - yeah, it's more like they don't have a good reason except that they want to, similar to Molly White's 'non notability' excuse for censoring Chris-Chan's name on the KF article (maybe we should remove passing mentions of anyone 'non notable' from all articles, see how they like that one). It's clear that Wikipedia has on the fly rules from powerful editors, and this is another such case.

And further down on the page, they spill thousands of words on her preferred pronouns.

 

[RobertDole]

In the spirit of tracking down more dumb shit, I decided to take a look at the articles with the most edited talk pages.
Congrats to Gamergate for making the Top 10. Surprised to see Sarah Palin right up there with Jesus. And at #19 we see... someone I've never heard of? Looks like some new age guru that presumably has a bunch of crazed cult members trying to edit his page? Also, gotta hand it to the tankies for their persistence in getting the "Mass killings under communist regimes" talk page into the Top 25.

1. Donald Trump 68,813
2. Barack Obama 46,872
3. Climate change 42,454
4. United States 32,824
5. Intelligent design 32,667
6. Jesus 31,179
7. Sarah Palin 28,547
8. Gamergate (harassment campaign) 27,790
9. Homeopathy 26,016
10. Race and intelligence 25,923
11. Gaza War (2008–2009) 25,180
12. India 24,904
13. September 11 attacks 24,538
14. Muhammad 24,179
15. Evolution 23,558
16. Circumcision 23,230
17. George W. Bush 23,172
18. Climatic Research Unit email controversy 22,696
19. Prem Rawat 22,351
20. Control of cities during the Syrian civil war 22,337
21. Catholic Church 21,887
22. Israel 21,553
23. Adolf Hitler 21,054
24. Abortion 20,663
25. Mass killings under communist regimes 20,358
26. World War II 20,105
27. Michael Jackson 19,744
28. Chiropractic 19,380
29. COVID-19 pandemic 19,291
30. Atheism 19,202
31. United Kingdom 19,105
32. International recognition of Kosovo 18,922
33. Anarchism 18,817
34. Thomas Jefferson 17,813
35. Jehovah's Witnesses 17,353
36. Syrian civil war 17,167
37. British Isles 16,769
38. List of best-selling music artists 16,422
39. Cold fusion 16,284
40. Libertarianism 15,525
41. George Washington 15,443
42. Wikipedia 15,274
43. United States and state terrorism 15,067
44. Transcendental Meditation 14,731
45. Israel and the apartheid analogy 14,717
46. Electronic cigarette 14,606
47. Russo-Georgian War 14,399
48. Ulysses S. Grant 14,393
49. Christianity 14,352
50. Canada 14,018
51. Julian Assange 13,752
52. Taiwan 13,741
53. Neuro-linguistic programming 13,438
54. Hillary Clinton 13,404
55. The Holocaust 13,334
56. Armenian genocide 13,136
57. Kosovo 13,052

 

[Molly White's Breast Milk]

39. Cold fusion 16,284

lol, wut? Did we all get transported back to 1994 or something? Cold fusion was debunked before most of the trany jannies of wikipedo were born.

 

[WhiteNight]

Got that? Wikipedians are all about 'valor', yeah sure.

These talk page debates go round in circles. They simply don't want to include Chelsea's name, and they'll grab whatever policy they can think of to justify it. It's the same on every political article, where they'll find an obscure source that kind of says what they want and call it reliable, and disdain any that contradict it.

They say they want to prevent "harassment" of Chelsea. But how does posting her birth name affect harassment, especially when anyone with Google can find it anyhow? A far more public figure, Bill Clinton, is controversial enough that he likely gets nasty messages, yet his birth name is included. Or Elton John, another member of the LGBTQFAG community, has his original name in the article.

lol, wut? Did we all get transported back to 1994 or something? Cold fusion was debunked before most of the trany jannies of wikipedo were born.

The massive debates over the article mostly happened a long time ago. The talk page archive is up to 48 entries, but archive #43 is over ten years old, and indeed the archive was up to #10 by 2006. Admittedly, though, cold fusion was a largely dead idea even then.

It's similar to Sarah Palin being the 7th most edited. Who has cared about her since 2008?

 

[BootlegPopeye]

.similar to Sarah Palin being the 7th most edited. Who has cared about her since 2008?

That is a throwback to the old ruling caste of Wikipedia in the aughts, they obsessed over the woman for years, long after she stopped holding any office. Something about her just really set off a lot of liberals including the Wikipedia version.

In the same vein, I mentioned a while back in this thread about the Stephen Colbert at the White House correspondent dinner being a featured article at one point. That was the center of gravity of the Wikipedia nerd interest in that era. There are a lot of bad Fedora written religion articles too largely by the same people.

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

These talk page debates go round in circles. They simply don't want to include Chelsea's name, and they'll grab whatever policy they can think of to justify it. It's the same on every political article, where they'll find an obscure source that kind of says what they want and call it reliable, and disdain any that contradict it.

They say their want to prevent "harassment" of Chelsea. But how does posting her birth name affect harassment, especially when anyone with Google can find it anyhow? A far more public figure, Bill Clinton, is controversial enough that he likely gets nasty messages, yet his birth name is included. Or Elton John, another member of the LGBTQFAG community, has his original name in the article.


The massive debates over the article mostly happened a long time ago. The talk page archive is up to 48 entries, but archive #43 is over ten years old, and indeed the archive was up to #10 by 2006. Admittedly, though, cold fusion was a largely dead idea even then.

It's similar to Sarah Palin being the 7th most edited. Who has cared about her since 2008?

I knew a lot of creeps irl who wanted her dead for YEARS

 

[AnOminous]

In the spirit of tracking down more dumb shit, I decided to take a look at the articles with the most edited talk pages.
Congrats to Gamergate for making the Top 10. Surprised to see Sarah Palin right up there with Jesus. And at #19 we see... someone I've never heard of? Looks like some new age guru that presumably has a bunch of crazed cult members trying to edit his page? Also, gotta hand it to the tankies for their persistence in getting the "Mass killings under communist regimes" talk page into the Top 25.

1. Donald Trump 68,813
2. Barack Obama 46,872
3. Climate change 42,454
4. United States 32,824
5. Intelligent design 32,667
6. Jesus 31,179
7. Sarah Palin 28,547
8. Gamergate (harassment campaign) 27,790
9. Homeopathy 26,016
10. Race and intelligence 25,923
11. Gaza War (2008–2009) 25,180
12. India 24,904
13. September 11 attacks 24,538
14. Muhammad 24,179
15. Evolution 23,558
16. Circumcision 23,230
17. George W. Bush 23,172
18. Climatic Research Unit email controversy 22,696
19. Prem Rawat 22,351
20. Control of cities during the Syrian civil war 22,337
21. Catholic Church 21,887
22. Israel 21,553
23. Adolf Hitler 21,054
24. Abortion 20,663
25. Mass killings under communist regimes 20,358
26. World War II 20,105
27. Michael Jackson 19,744
28. Chiropractic 19,380
29. COVID-19 pandemic 19,291
30. Atheism 19,202
31. United Kingdom 19,105
32. International recognition of Kosovo 18,922
33. Anarchism 18,817
34. Thomas Jefferson 17,813
35. Jehovah's Witnesses 17,353
36. Syrian civil war 17,167
37. British Isles 16,769
38. List of best-selling music artists 16,422
39. Cold fusion 16,284
40. Libertarianism 15,525
41. George Washington 15,443
42. Wikipedia 15,274
43. United States and state terrorism 15,067
44. Transcendental Meditation 14,731
45. Israel and the apartheid analogy 14,717
46. Electronic cigarette 14,606
47. Russo-Georgian War 14,399
48. Ulysses S. Grant 14,393
49. Christianity 14,352
50. Canada 14,018
51. Julian Assange 13,752
52. Taiwan 13,741
53. Neuro-linguistic programming 13,438
54. Hillary Clinton 13,404
55. The Holocaust 13,334
56. Armenian genocide 13,136
57. Kosovo 13,052

I especially love "Gamergate (harassment campaign)" because of the disambiguation page, almost certainly entirely created just to justify putting that there (the only other entry being an extremely obscure word that is not remotely ambiguously different). Agenda much?

 

[AirdropShitposts]

I knew a lot of creeps irl who wanted her dead for YEARS

Chelsea Van Valkenburg?

 

[AnOminous]

Chelsea Van Valkenburg?

Sarah Palin.

 

[JJLiautaud]

In the spirit of tracking down more dumb shit, I decided to take a look at the articles with the most edited talk pages.
Congrats to Gamergate for making the Top 10. Surprised to see Sarah Palin right up there with Jesus. And at #19 we see... someone I've never heard of? Looks like some new age guru that presumably has a bunch of crazed cult members trying to edit his page? Also, gotta hand it to the tankies for their persistence in getting the "Mass killings under communist regimes" talk page into the Top 25.

1. Donald Trump 68,813
2. Barack Obama 46,872
3. Climate change 42,454
4. United States 32,824
5. Intelligent design 32,667
6. Jesus 31,179
7. Sarah Palin 28,547
8. Gamergate (harassment campaign) 27,790
9. Homeopathy 26,016
10. Race and intelligence 25,923
11. Gaza War (2008–2009) 25,180
12. India 24,904
13. September 11 attacks 24,538
14. Muhammad 24,179
15. Evolution 23,558
16. Circumcision 23,230
17. George W. Bush 23,172
18. Climatic Research Unit email controversy 22,696
19. Prem Rawat 22,351
20. Control of cities during the Syrian civil war 22,337
21. Catholic Church 21,887
22. Israel 21,553
23. Adolf Hitler 21,054
24. Abortion 20,663
25. Mass killings under communist regimes 20,358
26. World War II 20,105
27. Michael Jackson 19,744
28. Chiropractic 19,380
29. COVID-19 pandemic 19,291
30. Atheism 19,202
31. United Kingdom 19,105
32. International recognition of Kosovo 18,922
33. Anarchism 18,817
34. Thomas Jefferson 17,813
35. Jehovah's Witnesses 17,353
36. Syrian civil war 17,167
37. British Isles 16,769
38. List of best-selling music artists 16,422
39. Cold fusion 16,284
40. Libertarianism 15,525
41. George Washington 15,443
42. Wikipedia 15,274
43. United States and state terrorism 15,067
44. Transcendental Meditation 14,731
45. Israel and the apartheid analogy 14,717
46. Electronic cigarette 14,606
47. Russo-Georgian War 14,399
48. Ulysses S. Grant 14,393
49. Christianity 14,352
50. Canada 14,018
51. Julian Assange 13,752
52. Taiwan 13,741
53. Neuro-linguistic programming 13,438
54. Hillary Clinton 13,404
55. The Holocaust 13,334
56. Armenian genocide 13,136
57. Kosovo 13,052

The first actually good article on that is actually the Jesus article it says that the Jesus myth is false it keeps fedora tipping down to a minimum and it has a bunch of neat information and like all article on a really fucking big topic it serves as a good nexus point for a bunch of articles.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

The first actually good article on that is actually the Jesus article it says that the Jesus myth is false it keeps fedora tipping down to a minimum and it has a bunch of neat information and like all article on a really fucking big topic it serves as a good nexus point for a bunch of articles.

Yeah that is because there are alot of editors who make a real effort to not allow the page to get shit up by fedora. To find fedoras, you have to go into secondary religious topics, like various aspects of Catholic theology and history. This one is minor, but I noticed it awhile back:

Sure, it is just some Catholic and Protestant painter's artistic depiction and not a formal part of dogma, but you get the idea.

More broadly, the short description result in search results is how some of them will hide slanted material, ie there was an infamous case a couple years ago where Melania Trump was described as a 'former sex worker and porn star'.

 

[Nod Flenders]

George W. Bush 23,172

Amazing how Bush is still one of the most edited page, even though he's been out of office since 2008.