Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[AnOminous]

Uhm...ackshually you can't tell if Mohammad was a pedophile when he married a six year old, because we can't tell if he just liked molesting children or if he was ACKSHUALLY attracted to them.

Infidel, you are defaming the Prophet, PBUH. He waited until Aisha was nine before raping her.

The truck of peace is on its way.

 

[Darwin Watterson]

This article is one sentence long and basically amounts to "well we don't know much, but maybe if you drink water instead of liquid sugar you'll lose some weight."

 

[glue eater]

Infidel, you are defaming the Prophet, PBUH. He waited until Aisha was nine before raping her.

The truck of peace is on its way.

Here're some belated screencaps vis a vis Muhammad's pedophilia. It all boilts down to "NOOOO YOU CANT SAY THAT".






Even the Wikipedia page "Criticism of Muhammad" is rebuttal of criticism rather than exploration of it. As a cherry on top of the cake, Muhammad, all his wives and companions are represented as islamic calligraphy by good little wikipedia dhimmis, while every single article of people has to be represented by images. Hell, even "Cock and ball torture" article has to be illustrated with pictures.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Even the Wikipedia page "Criticism of Muhammad" is rebuttal of criticism rather than exploration of it. As a cherry on top of the cake, Muhammad, all his wives and companions are represented as islamic calligraphy by good little wikipedia dhimmis, while every single article of people has to be represented by images. Hell, even "Cock and ball torture" article has to be illustrated with pictures.

I think it makes sense because the Muhammad calligraphy is mostly pretty similar and is by far the most common way to "depict" him, but actual images of Muhammad created by Islamic artists are just the artist's own personal choice (even if he usually has a glowing aura, fire, etc. around him). There's no canonical picture of Prophet Moe, unlike with Jesus who is a white guy with long brown hair and a beard in most depictions or Buddha who's almost always seated in a particular posture dressed as a monk.

 

[glue eater]

I think it makes sense because the Muhammad calligraphy is mostly pretty similar and is by far the most common way to "depict" him, but actual images of Muhammad created by Islamic artists are just the artist's own personal choice (even if he usually has a glowing aura, fire, etc. around him). There's no canonical picture of Prophet Moe, unlike with Jesus who is a white guy with long brown hair and a beard in most depictions or Buddha who's almost always seated in a particular posture dressed as a monk.

Compare this how Western religious figures are depicted, for example early popes Pope Pius or Elutherius who have in their infobox a portrait made 1400 years after his death. Pretty much the Wikipedia policy is using the earliest extant depiction, doesn't matter if its hundreds of years later or if it bears any resemblance to the person it depicts.

 

[Skeletonized Cow]

Compare this how Western religious figures are depicted, for example early popes Pope Pius or Elutherius who have in their infobox a portrait made 1400 years after his death. Pretty much the Wikipedia policy is using the earliest extant depiction, doesn't matter if its hundreds of years later or if it bears any resemblance to the person it depicts.

So, because I was bored (and am autistic), I decided to do some snooping into what exactly Wikipedia says regarding images in biographical infoboxes. The official policy is as follows:

The image in the infobox should be representative of the person who is the subject of the article.

So. despite it undeniably being silly to some degree, using the calligraphy for Muhammad actually makes sense when considering that such depictions would be "representative." You see this with a lot of early Islamic figures too, such as all the Rashidun Caliphs, or even the article "Jesus in Islam" which doesn't even depict a Muslim.

 

[Sicko Hunter]

And there it is, Wikipedia added a school shooting to the Farms article. They're pretty obviously trying to imply to readers that we're to blame:
View attachment 4055928

Kiwi Farms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did the shooter have a Facebook account also? Did he post creepy stuff there? Did people on Facebook talk about the shooting? I don't know, because Wikipedia's doesn't think such details are worth mentioning in their article on Facebook (because they're not).

Incidentally, are these assertions even true? The article cites garbage sources such as the SPLC for their claims, and the article on the shooting itself is full of nonsense such as calling the Farms alt-right.

Okay this actually pisses me the fuck off. If we are going to blame internet forums and not mental illness for the shooting William Atchison aka "Fuck you" was a prolific Encyclopedia Dramatica editor. He edited and wrote nearly every single school shooter article on the website. He sunk thousands of man hours into working on ED. His only interaction on this website was several dozen schizophrenic edgelord posts about fucking men and niggers. William was only a member here for a little over a year while he was an Ediot for nearly a decade.

 

[glue eater]

So, because I was bored (and am autistic), I decided to do some snooping into what exactly Wikipedia says regarding images in biographical infoboxes. The official policy is as follows:

The image in the infobox should be representative of the person who is the subject of the article.

So. despite it undeniably being silly to some degree, using the calligraphy for Muhammad actually makes sense when considering that such depictions would be "representative." You see this with a lot of early Islamic figures too, such as all the Rashidun Caliphs, or even the article "Jesus in Islam" which doesn't even depict a Muslim.

I know this is getting silly but to muslims Jesus was a muslim, and prophet in Islam so his depiction would be forbidden. Not that there's a shortage of depictions of Jesus.

 

[AnOminous]

Okay this actually pisses me the fuck off. If we are going to blame internet forums and not mental illness for the shooting William Atchison aka "Fuck you" was a prolific Encyclopedia Dramatica editor. He edited and wrote nearly every single school shooter article on the website. He sunk thousands of man hours into working on ED. His only interaction on this website was several dozen schizophrenic edgelord posts about fucking men and niggers. William was only a member here for a little over a year while he was an Ediot for nearly a decade.

It's not even accidental. One of their own "reliable sources" that they cite in the Aztec school shooting article goes into great detail about his voluminous ED activity:

New Mexico School Shooter Had Secret Life on Pro-Trump White-Supremacy Sites

For years before William Edward Atchison killed two students and himself, he lived a shadow life online—one full of crude alt-right memes and praise for school shooters.

www.thedailybeast.com

Read the bogus, slanted Wikipedia articles and you wouldn't even know that was his Internet home for over a decade. You'd think he lived and breathed on Kiwi Farms, where he barely posted anything, and nothing of any substance.

 

[murph]

The begging is beginning to sound desperate, Inshallah.

 

[DeadwastePrime]

The begging is beginning to sound desperate, Inshallah.

View attachment 4074210

at this point just say you already donated and it should stop for a decent while

 

[306h4Ge5eJUJ]

The begging is beginning to sound desperate, Inshallah.

View attachment 4074210

Probably intentional to get idiots to donate. They're not hurting for money in the least.

 

[Arianne Chan]

Spoiler

And there it is, Wikipedia added a school shooting to the Farms article. They're pretty obviously trying to imply to readers that we're to blame:
View attachment 4055928

Kiwi Farms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did the shooter have a Facebook account also? Did he post creepy stuff there? Did people on Facebook talk about the shooting? I don't know, because Wikipedia's doesn't think such details are worth mentioning in their article on Facebook (because they're not).

Incidentally, are these assertions even true? The article cites garbage sources such as the SPLC for their claims, and the article on the shooting itself is full of nonsense such as

calling the Farms alt-right.

I saw that shit too, i find it amusing how they try avoid mentioning Chris chan

 

[WhiteNight]

Probably intentional to get idiots to donate. They're not hurting for money in the least.

Wikipedia is flush with cash, and have far more than they need to run their servers. Despite the banners' claims about how you're donating to spread knowledge, the money they collect is for Wikimedia's pet social justice projects. Every dime you give them goes straight into a black gay troon groomer fund or something similar.

This Twitter thread from two months ago sums it up well:

https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633

 

[Rusty Metal Skull Gun]

I saw that shit too, i find it amusing how they try avoid mentioning Chris chan
View attachment 4075008

I can't remember if it's been mentioned here before or not, but they even have a filter based on Chris' name. Try to mention Chris on any article at all, and it'll get flagged. It's bizarre.

 

[Sicko Hunter]

Wikipedia is flush with cash, and have far more than they need to run their servers. Despite the banners' claims about how you're donating to spread knowledge, the money they collect is for Wikimedia's pet social justice projects. Every dime you give them goes straight into a black gay troon groomer fund or something similar.

This Twitter thread from two months ago sums it up well:

https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633

This is even worse then I thought it would be Jesus Christ.

That string of buzzwords in the first sentence is incredible btw. Beyond parody. You have Eurocentricy™, equity™, patriarchy™, supremacy™, privilege™, inclusiveness™ and of color™

 

[Shard]

This is even worse then I thought it would be Jesus Christ.
View attachment 4075320
That string of buzzwords in the first sentence is incredible btw. Beyond parody. You have Eurocentricy™, equity™, patriarchy™, supremacy™, privilege™, inclusiveness™ and of color™

Why do they even bother with these overembellished, meaningless word salads? Just say you hate white people.

 

[Pedophobe]

It now hosts threads targeting many individuals, including minorities, women, LGBT people, neurodivergent people, people considered by Kiwi Farms users to be mentally ill or sexually deviant, feminists, journalists, Internet celebrities, video game or comics hobbyists, and far-right personalities.

We have a whole forum for deathfats and Wikipedia doesn't even care. Typical bigots.

 

[Syntaxion]

Here're some belated screencaps vis a vis Muhammad's pedophilia. It all boilts down to "NOOOO YOU CANT SAY THAT".

View attachment 4067145
View attachment 4067151View attachment 4067157
View attachment 4067160View attachment 4067163
View attachment 4067184View attachment 4067181

Even the Wikipedia page "Criticism of Muhammad" is rebuttal of criticism rather than exploration of it. As a cherry on top of the cake, Muhammad, all his wives and companions are represented as islamic calligraphy by good little wikipedia dhimmis, while every single article of people has to be represented by images. Hell, even "Cock and ball torture" article has to be illustrated with pictures.

View attachment 4067172

You know, I could respect muslims far more if they could atleast own up to it. Even just "yeah that's bad, but he did great things too and it doesn't take away from his good deeds" or whatever, would suffice. But this dumb game of "uhmm actually sweety technically there's no proof of her being 9, female or even existing because every source is biased" is so obvious, it's painful. It's like he knows pedos are bad, so he just dances around the issue as if it never happened. Atleast have enough decency to own up to, even if that means downplaying it.

I have actually met muslims who basically just go "yeah that was bad, but it was a different time" or "good people can do bad things", which I can atleast somewhat respect, since they're not denying it

 

[AnOminous]

I have actually met muslims who basically just go "yeah that was bad, but it was a different time" or "good people can do bad things", which I can atleast somewhat respect, since they're not denying it

They'd best not admit it in public though or they'll get fatwa'ed faster than Salman Rushdie.