Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Corpun said:
Anyone seen the article on the Paul Pelosi attack yet? There's so many usages of the word 'baseless', 'conspiracy theory' etc. because how dare you question the official narrative on the worst attack on our democracy since, checks notes, Jan 6!
Click to expand...
Biden made this attack the centerpiece of his Nov 2 pre-midterm speech. There's a clear effort to portray this Bay Area nutcase, whose views bounced from extreme left to right, as representative of the Republican party. People who ask logical questions about whether the story makes sense are portrayed as supporters of violence.

I figure it's most likely that the mainstream version of events is true, but it is by no means inconceivable that a politician's family is involved in something sleazy and can pull strings to cover it up.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: supremeautismo, cuddle striker, marisa # and 3 others
WhiteNight said:
Biden made this attack the centerpiece of his Nov 2 pre-midterm speech. There's a clear effort to portray this Bay Area nutcase, whose views bounced from extreme left to right, as representative of the Republican party. People who ask logical questions about whether the story makes sense are portrayed as supporters of violence.

I figure it's most likely that the mainstream version of events is true, but it is by no means inconceivable that a politician's family is involved in something sleazy and can pull strings to cover it up.
Click to expand...
Honestly the fact they don't want to release any footage at all (At least until they find a way to splice or doctor it in some way that is beneficial) makes me suspicious of the official narrative as a whole given how many contradictory statements about the attack have been made. That isn't here or there though, the most hilarious thing in the article is that they claim Republicans baselessly tie the attack to a conspiracy theory that Democrat led cities are violent hellholes of crime.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: supremeautismo, marisa #, Caesare and 2 others

Talk:Nazism/Archive 1 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

30 fucking archives.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a piece of history. Well loved and regarded, and crystal clear, like a mosquito trapped in amber. Passed from one generation to the next, the death of wikipedia

All of this, is about whether or not the fucking nationalists socialists were socialists and other retarded questions. A question answered by my 8th grade history teacher in the succinct "While they came from it, their polices didn't really resemble modern day socialism, and it's a poor way to compare the two. You can say it's an offshoot maybe, but if you were to say they were identical on a test you'd get a lot of points off. Which I think most normal people can fucking get behind. Hopefully.

watch it degrade from novice historians to Janny Spergins to what is clearly a soul crushed Jannie trying to fend off activist editors. History in motion.

>I am posting here under my own name. I have a master's degree in history (2005) from the Free University in Berlin, as anyone can confirm by contacting the Friedrich Meinecke Institute (dekan13@zedat.fu-berlin.de). For best results, communicate in the German language.

>It is a favorite sport of extreme partisans in the United States to identify their opponents with the Nazis. On the right, this is daily fare for luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, who identify feminists or environmentalists as Nazis. On the left, the accusation of Nazism is regularly thrown at the Bush administration because of its policies on torture, domestic espionage and imprisonment without trial.

>Regardless where you stand politically, changing history to reflect contemporary political views is absurd. In this case, the currently protected version of the "Nazism" article includes sections reflecting a political bias. These should be modified or removed:

Bryonmorrigan - You could try looking for conservatives with education or training in the subject. Or is anyone who disagrees with you disqualified from having a viewpoint? That's a pretty extreme assertion, and not really amenable to wiki authorship. Your comparison is simply out to lunch. My statement had not the least thing to do with holocaust denial, or even the repudiation of any established historical fact. If you're capable of leaving these wild and unscholarly accusations at the doorstep, we may be able to have an intelligent discussion. What you are trying to do is the very definition of POV, and it's against Wikipedia's policies. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe in a particular taxonomy. Other people use it differently than you do. I'd be happy to see this article stick to objective statements of fact rather than become a platform for various individual's political viewpoints

That's it TFD, I've had it! Out of the blue you suddenly and ignorantly accuse me of POV-pushing for presenting three sources with no evidence of what the POV is that I am pushing!!! Explain to me exactly what POV I am pushing here with the presentation of those three sources. Those sources contain different views. I get it, you're cynical from being on Wikipedia for years, but you don't have the right to make callous accusations based merely on your cynical gut-instinct.--R-41 (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]As you have pointed out, nazi ideology and administration are two separate things. Experts may examine administration when they are determining what nazi ideology was, but for us to do that is original research. If religion was a major component of the ideology then you should be able to find an article about nazi ideology that says that. A book about the relationship between the nazi state and the churches does not do that. We cannot assume that nazi policies on the churches reflected ideology rather than for example pragmatism. TFD (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazism is stated as being on the fringes of society when it should be expressed that, as of 2022, neo-Nazism is on the rise in many western societies.
I think this section should be updated to reflect the current status of this situation. When rallies are being held by the political leaders of a particular party where the Nazi flag is being displayed with impunity and pride, this is no longer a fringe sector, but an actual, mainstream movement in local, state, and national politics. LizzybethC (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have expressed an opinion above. Articles in the encyclopedia are not based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Unless you can provide a citation of a reliable source to support your contention, the content of the article will not be changed as a result of your comment. General Ization Talk 16:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]It turns out the Nazi flag story was fake.[10] TFD (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph or a subsection about the misuse of ‘socialism’ by the Nazis
Hi everyone, what does everyone think about including a paragraph or possibly a subsection about the misuse of socialism by the Nazis? The alt-right, conspiracy theorists and other groups of people have been spreading the myth that the Nazis were socialists for quite some time. Now, of course, anyone who has read a fair amount or watched plenty of documentaries about the Third Reich will know that the Nazis weren’t socialists. I think it’s a good inclusion to the article so casual readers on Wikipedia can find it out easily enough. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read the FAQ, the word means something different here, namely anti-individualism. There’s a reason “national-socialism” is hyphenated. Dronebogus (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]​

 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: supremeautismo, Shard, murph and 7 others
TIK most effected, but seriously like all long running slap fights on the internet its a question of definitions and categories which are always deeply unproductive.
 
I can see why people would endlessly argue about this. Modern leftists who share similar policies and sentiments as national socialism and Italian fascism want to be as far dissociated from these demonized ideologies as possible to increase their marketability, even if they are similar or related. If one demonized communism as much as national socialism, we'd see the same behaviors from interested parties.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Slime Tube, UnsufficentBoobage, Toolbox and 4 others
Kendall Motor Oil said:
I can see why people would endlessly argue about this. Modern leftists who share similar policies and sentiments as national socialism and Italian fascism want to be as far dissociated from these demonized ideologies as possible to increase their marketability, even if they are similar or related. If one demonized communism as much as national socialism, we'd see the same behaviors from interested parties.
Click to expand...
That's just projection from the left. Framing everything they don't like as fascism or nazism.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, murph, Caesare and 4 others
Bayes_theorem_assassin.svg.png
Someone posted amogus to explain Bayes' theorem and the wiki jannies are not happy about it (archive)
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Lunacy
Reactions: timewave0, Madre Muerte, UnsufficentBoobage and 14 others
A year ago I posted about the autism of Formula One fans, but I never realized that much of the autism largely comes from two users who believe in the "rules for thee, but not for me" mentality. From what I gather, these two lovely users, SSSB and LesRoutine are both active in Wikipedia's Formula One/race driving project. And among this includes meticulously listing every single Formula One racer who has multiple citizenships in every single opening sentence. But, having a foreign origin parent or grandparent and possessing dual citizenship because of that fact is not uncommon around the world. Especially among the rich and famous. The only rational for this inclusion seems to be because those users say so.

Unsurprisingly, user SSSB has the retarded war medal picture that so many "experienced" Wikipedia editors pride themselves in having. For a site that claims to strive on "neutrality", it's hilarious to see how blatantly obvious it is that a select few editors call all the shots.
Wiki User page.png
One poor IP user tried pointing out that Wikipedia's own guidelines specifically state that other citizenships should not be mentioned in someone's opening paragraph unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Mind you, the example of this was British racing driver Lando Norris, who is only described as being British by official Formula One sources. He has only represented U.K afaik and his birth, upbringing and so on were all in the United Kingdom. I know that there are people who represent multiple countries in sports for a variety of reasons. But many of these racing car drivers are not in this category.

These two all-knowing users had no proper response as to why Drake gets described as being a "Canadian" and not "Canadian-American", despite having an American father, dual Canadian/American citizenship and even owning a home in the United States. Their only responses was basically, "so what"?

EDIT: Just as I typed this, a user has tried describing Norris as solely "British". I wonder how long that will stick.
Nationality talk page.png
Looking at other athletes, the only one I believe may have some autistic debates are basketball players. There are tennis players for example who have multiple citizenship. But it was agreed upon that their dual citizenship is not relevant to their notability, and that's following Wikipedia's own guidelines. Examples include Emma Raducanu and Roger Federer, the former of whom is despite the fact that they were born in Canada, has talked about her Canadian birth and so on.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Sicko Hunter, supremeautismo, lostkeys and 7 others
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: fenny, Helvítis Túristi, UnsufficentBoobage and 13 others
Lucille Bluth said:
A year ago I posted about the autism of Formula One fans, but I never realized that much of the autism largely comes from two users who believe in the "rules for thee, but not for me" mentality. From what I gather, these two lovely users, SSSB and LesRoutine are both active in Wikipedia's Formula One/race driving project. And among this includes meticulously listing every single Formula One racer who has multiple citizenships in every single opening sentence. But, having a foreign origin parent or grandparent and possessing dual citizenship because of that fact is not uncommon around the world. Especially among the rich and famous. The only rational for this inclusion seems to be because those users say so.

Unsurprisingly, user SSSB has the retarded war medal picture that so many "experienced" Wikipedia editors pride themselves in having. For a site that claims to strive on "neutrality", it's hilarious to see how blatantly obvious it is that a select few editors call all the shots.
View attachment 3851703
One poor IP user tried pointing out that Wikipedia's own guidelines specifically state that other citizenships should not be mentioned in someone's opening paragraph unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Mind you, the example of this was British racing driver Lando Norris, who is only described as being British by official Formula One sources. He has only represented U.K afaik and his birth, upbringing and so on were all in the United Kingdom. I know that there are people who represent multiple countries in sports for a variety of reasons. But many of these racing car drivers are not in this category.

These two all-knowing users had no proper response as to why Drake gets described as being a "Canadian" and not "Canadian-American", despite having an American father, dual Canadian/American citizenship and even owning a home in the United States. Their only responses was basically, "so what"?

EDIT: Just as I typed this, a user has tried describing Norris as solely "British". I wonder how long that will stick.
View attachment 3851736
Looking at other athletes, the only one I believe may have some autistic debates are basketball players. There are tennis players for example who have multiple citizenship. But it was agreed upon that their dual citizenship is not relevant to their notability, and that's following Wikipedia's own guidelines. Examples include Emma Raducanu and Roger Federer, the former of whom is despite the fact that they were born in Canada, has talked about her Canadian birth and so on.
Click to expand...
Holy shit, I was just about to bring up F1 lol.
There is so much horrid shit in the F1 season pages.

For a start, the pages change from being called "season" to "World Championship" in 1981, with no redirects for either. The name was officially changed to the latter that year, but there is no fucking reason they can't have redirects for both terms, or at the very least a "If you meant X, see Y" (considering "F1 19xx/20xx" usually brings you to that season's page anyway). Just laziness and inconsistencies for the sake of being retarded.

Then there's the way they changed constructors' points being calculated:
en.wikipedia.org

2008 Formula One World Championship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

2015 Formula One World Championship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Rather than separate them by car number, as they had done in the past, they've been sorted so it's now a mixed-in "best result, low result". And you could make the argument it's because the FIA specified that's how it's counted now, but the way the championship fundamentally works is no different to how it used to, and the common reader does not need to know the intricacies of the FIA's spec.

Also the tables aren't sortable, even though they really should be, since you'd then be able to sort the drivers alphabetically, by country, or see a single race's result at a glance. To program those in, you need to add one word to the initial table construction. Further irrelevant sperging, the way they've programmed the "retired" symbol, a cross (✝), differs from season to season, which makes them tough to use in Excel since one of them embeds them directly into the cell and you can't delete them, even if you wipe the table clean.

And 90% of races that happened prior to Senna & Prost are stubs disguised as full articles. Take one of the most famous races of all time, characterised by a battle for 2nd between Villeneuve and Jabouille. The battle which raged for several laps until the end of the race has been condensed to three lines, and from there it's:
  • Qualifying classification
  • Race classification
  • Championship classification
And apparently nothing else of note happened that weekend. Compare that against the F1 Wiki's much more thorough article on the same race. Granted, there's a lot of unnecessary spergery about team politics and point calculations, but there is far more relevant info in there. Stuff that happened in practice, catastrophic failures and crashes, and drama both on and off the track. Stuff later articles have no problem shoving down readers' throats due to recency bias. And crucially, quite a bit of stuff people should know, even at a glance.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Da Capo, SaidTheSpider and 2 others
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: supremeautismo, Toolbox, Flaming Insignias and 2 others
Mr. Confederate Man said:
I've got to know what this drawing was
Click to expand...
This.
5721b9e4b0d4b2e9628ff0d4fcc6b8f8e6a55797.jpg
Rome's rightful successor said:
It reminds me of when wikipedia used this bad drawing of Kim Jong Un despite all these photos of him.
Click to expand...
Wikipedos, despite begging for donations every two months, are too cheap to buy access to copyrighted photos that can be easily available on Google images. The only started using actual photos of him after he met with Trump in 2018-9. I'm not too sure on the technicalities, but it probably has something to do with the fact that the photos could be directly sourced from western sources instead of NK propaganda outlets.

It still doesn't explain why one of them can't just meet up with reviewbrah and snap their own photo of him.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: supremeautismo, murph, White_N and 5 others
I know we're far, far beyond this in the scale of degeneracy but I still can't believe that something purporting to be an encyclopedia would casually drop the name "Alaska Thunderfuck" in an unrelated article, in fact go out of their way to do so. Fuck this gay earth, I want off this ride.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: fenny, UnsufficentBoobage, InfantCrippler and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back