Really depends on what part of the encyclopedia you're lurking on. If you're in the Wikipedia namespace, expect that to be a common thing. Article talk pages are generally okay and do remain on topic, but if it's a popular or controversial topic expect sockpuppet accusations to be tossed around in response to views being bolstered.
Did you know section has notoriously included paid advertising like when Gibraltar's tourism board paid people to push for Gibraltar-related articles to be there. It wouldn't surprise me if other paid advertising/PR campaigns make their way there, and I bet at least some of it is ShareBlue-tier paid political shilling.
This article doesn't exist and no log entries list this page as a target of any action. This is the case on both english and simple english wikipedia. The two users in the second screenshot, "Athenya" and "QueueKaye", also do not exist on the english wikipedias. Where are those screenshots from?
Asking the real questions arent you. Ill have you know I pulled these off of the ever reliable 4chan who as we all can attest never lies. But seriously its just an image thats floating around.
Did some searching and found the revision history from those screenshots. It's from "Dustloop Wiki".
>the aug 8 editDid some searching and found the revision history from those screenshots. It's from "Dustloop Wiki".
However, the Bridget (Guilty Gear) article on Wikipedia actually does have a long and funny edit war, featuring hard page protection and use of twitter.com as a source.
I'm shocked that Wikipedia actually mentioned the comparisons of transracialism to accepting transgender people. But I see that Oli also identifies as non-binary and later trans as well.I found the best Wikipedia article. It reads almost like satire (just like Oli koreanself)
Oli London - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
All of these Wiki edits and comments under the edits made me think that this was turning into ResetEra for a minute.If someone has beaten me to it, fair enough, I'm slow-in-the-mind, somehow this seems so obvious I can't believe I haven't seen it here before, but here is definitely the cornucopia of stupid shit: Wikipedia's own conflict pages
View attachment 3580725
- Neutral point of view noticeboard
- Reliable sources noticeboard
- No original research noticeboard
- Biographies of living persons noticeboard
- Fringe theories noticeboard
- Conflict of interest noticeboard
- External links noticeboard
Wikikes: Conservatives claimed WITHOUT EVIDENCE the laptop belonged to Hunter
Other wikikes: ...hold on, but it did belong to Hunter?
Wikikes: Yeah, but it was a conspiracy theory because they had no evidence it belonged to Hunter. The fact it did belong to Hunter is entirely incidental
Especially considering I am willing to bet wikipedia writes race and ethnicity off as a social construct.
One of the major issues is people have switched from investigating a subject, to just expecting to be told all the information. It used to be that you would read a wide range of sources on a single subject, and you would be expected to come to a conclusion on your own, with the evidence and differing point of views. Now people expect one place to just give them the "truth". People in the west on average got smarter, so rather than withholding the information, now its manipulation of the facts.
The part that baffles me is just how banal some of their lies are. Like I said I would understand if it was propaganda, but these are irrelevant details about relatively niche subjects, often with little or no impact on the overall content of the article. It's like there's someone on wikipedia who gets some sort of gratification out of low-level gaslighting by altering irrelevant facts in these articles and making sure they stay untrue.
If you want pure unadulterated autism, check out the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. There's an ongoing discussion (will eventually be put into a Wikipedia archive) about whether a former inactive administrator should be blocked for his more socially conservative views. Opinions vary between "hell yeah" and "hell no".If someone has beaten me to it, fair enough, I'm slow-in-the-mind, somehow this seems so obvious I can't believe I haven't seen it here before, but here is definitely the cornucopia of stupid shit: Wikipedia's own conflict pages
View attachment 3580725
- Neutral point of view noticeboard
- Reliable sources noticeboard
- No original research noticeboard
- Biographies of living persons noticeboard
- Fringe theories noticeboard
- Conflict of interest noticeboard
- External links noticeboard
Wikikes: Conservatives claimed WITHOUT EVIDENCE the laptop belonged to Hunter
Other wikikes: ...hold on, but it did belong to Hunter?
Wikikes: Yeah, but it was a conspiracy theory because they had no evidence it belonged to Hunter. The fact it did belong to Hunter is entirely incidental
