Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
kidding.jpg
 
  • Lunacy
  • DRINK!
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Liquid Hot Smegma, Blatant hypocrite, Zaryiu2 and 24 others
Flaming Insignias said:
Opinion is saying you oppose somebody politically. Falsely claiming someone is a goose-stepping Nazi in a way that millions will see your lies can ruin people's livelihood and the defamed should be able to sue for damages. NYT v Sullivan is a horrible precedent and should've been overturned alongside Roe and the Sullivan Act.
Click to expand...
Hope you're willing to go to prison just for being on this site when that happens.
 
  • Autistic
  • Like
Reactions: Sparkling Yuzu and Flaming Insignias
AnOminous said:
Hope you're willing to go to prison just for being on this site when that happens.
Click to expand...

That's not what Thomas and others were talking about when they have mentioned wanting to do away with or reducing the scope of Sullivan. Once the media can weasel in a 'public figure' definition of a person, it is then carte blanche to defame them. Thomas wanted to reduce the scope of what a public figure is; ie no more Nick Sandmanns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Idiot Asshole, Shaka Brah, Flaming Insignias and 2 others
You know what's funny?
When you stumble upon an article that should obviously be MUCH larger than it is, but interest in the page is such a niche topic that it will likely never be expanded upon.

This guy is the third longest reigning monarch in verifiable history. His lifespan was from 1866 - 1950, and he reigned for 78 of those 84 years. He obviously must have accomplished a lot during that time, but all Wikipedia has to say is some stuff about acres of land he donated, and how he ascended to the throne in the first place, along with the palace he built.

A preliminary Google search shows he was opposed to the abolition of Zamindari, whatever that was, but the article makes no mention of it. Most of what this guy said or did is probably sequestered away in rotting Hindi scriptures, and will never be read by Western eyes.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Zaryiu2, Captain Hastings Official, Sicko Hunter and 17 others
https://archive.ph/ggguR - Wikipedia article on a theoretical chemical compound made from francium, an element with a half-life of 22 minutes. "The reaction may be explosive."
Becky McDonald said:
You know what's funny?
When you stumble upon an article that should obviously be MUCH larger than it is, but interest in the page is such a niche topic that it will likely never be expanded upon.

This guy is the third longest reigning monarch in verifiable history. His lifespan was from 1866 - 1950, and he reigned for 78 of those 84 years. He obviously must have accomplished a lot during that time, but all Wikipedia has to say is some stuff about acres of land he donated, and how he ascended to the throne in the first place, along with the palace he built.

A preliminary Google search shows he was opposed to the abolition of Zamindari, whatever that was, but the article makes no mention of it. Most of what this guy said or did is probably sequestered away in rotting Hindi scriptures, and will never be read by Western eyes.
Click to expand...
Probably because he was basically a glorified landowner ("zamindari" is a sort of Indian feudalism thing) and not even like the semi-independent princes in British India (i.e. Mysore). There were a bunch of rulers in British Indian like him, so my guess is he just sat around and did whatever other rich Indian landowners did back in the day.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Bixby Snyder, Sparkling Yuzu, UnsufficentBoobage and 5 others
Save the Loli said:
https://archive.ph/ggguR - Wikipedia article on a theoretical chemical compound made from francium, an element with a half-life of 22 minutes. "The reaction may be explosive."

Probably because he was basically a glorified landowner ("zamindari" is a sort of Indian feudalism thing) and not even like the semi-independent princes in British India (i.e. Mysore). There were a bunch of rulers in British Indian like him, so my guess is he just sat around and did whatever other rich Indian landowners did back in the day.
Click to expand...
I looked into it a bit further, and it turns out that guy was the penultimate figurehead of a 2,000 year old dynasty, with his great-grandson holding it for 2 years in his early adulthood before it was abolished, and he died in 2014.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Zaryiu2, Zooch Qwu, Shiny Shroodle and 8 others
Becky McDonald said:
I looked into it a bit further, and it turns out that guy was the penultimate figurehead of a 2,000 year old dynasty, with his great-grandson holding it for 2 years in his early adulthood before it was abolished, and he died in 2014.
Click to expand...
The Indian dynasties are always interesting. Quite a few of them didn't want to join India but were forcibly invaded during political crisis in the 50s when India proceeded to abolish their hereditary rights.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: whiteboydiddy, Flaming Insignias, Shiny Shroodle and 5 others
veeeeeeeee said:
women ☕

View attachment 3556463
Click to expand...

Oh it gets more interesting - that article is an attempt to placate troons. Someone attempted to make it a redirect to 'female', or failing that to 'gender' (like Male (Gender) already is) and it got removed.

trannies.png


So this new page is in fact making it out to be different than biology, ie a fantasy page for troons.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Zaryiu2, Sicko Hunter, Bixby Snyder and 14 others
  • Like
Reactions: Rome's rightful successor and Luigi Cadorna
Day of the Cope said:
I need to start scraping this thread when people try and tell me "Wikipedia is still good if you avoid certain topics".
Click to expand...

Said on here a few times - if it is a subject that nerds don't care about, that's possible. So nothing that connects to politics, pop culture, history after WWII. Religious articles can sometimes be detailed and comprehensive, but only if it is a secondary doctrine and not something that attracts fedoras (see: Transubstantiation, "Christ Myth", etc).

With regard to the latter (religious articles), one thing I did notice is that Wikipedia's tendency to use 19th or early 20th century public domain books gives the articles a dated flavor in terms of scholarship. The article for the pre-Protestant theologian John Wycliffe is sourced primarily from those older books, which often had a hagiographical tone, and because of this has a number of errors about his beliefs. The related article for 'Lollards' is even worse.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: FaggotMcDick, Captain Hastings Official, Markass the Worst and 4 others
BootlegPopeye said:
Said on here a few times - if it is a subject that nerds don't care about, that's possible. So nothing that connects to politics, pop culture, history after WWII. Religious articles can sometimes be detailed and comprehensive, but only if it is a secondary doctrine and not something that attracts fedoras (see: Transubstantiation, "Christ Myth", etc).

With regard to the latter (religious articles), one thing I did notice is that Wikipedia's tendency to use 19th or early 20th century public domain books gives the articles a dated flavor in terms of scholarship. The article for the pre-Protestant theologian John Wycliffe is sourced primarily from those older books, which often had a hagiographical tone, and because of this has a number of errors about his beliefs. The related article for 'Lollards' is even worse.
Click to expand...
I hate to say it but that's everywhere. If you're a subject-matter expert on a topic and you review its page you can often see errors and omissions, or even outright lying for no reason. Especially when the scholarship being referenced is a rare or out of print book which not a lot of people own. I've had to re-check some of my own copies of books only to find that a cited "fact" or statement simply doesn't exist.

The worst part is, most of the ones I've seen are completely unimportant. I could understand it if it were propaganda but when these weird little factoids are irrelevant to the topic and have no political connotations I just don't see why it happens.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: FaggotMcDick, Markass the Worst, Flaming Insignias and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back