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.
wikipedia2.jpg
 
  • Winner
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, NoFeline, Omegamage and 3 others
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: TrueRosalina, Carpenter Trout, UnsufficentBoobage and 12 others
Now, Historicity of the Bible is not nearly so stupid an article as Missingno., but I'm still amused by the fact that they actually bothered to devote a paragraph to explaining, in that oh so calm and neutral Wikipedia way, why a literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent with modern understanding of history and science.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: NoFeline
I've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and I've seen some dumb shit in my day. To wit:

* For about five years, both "Halifax" and "Halifax, Nova Scotia" were disambiguation pages pointing to various political divisions of Halifax, Nova Scotia, but this was just confusing everyone since no single page seemed to be about JUST the community of Halifax. It led to a bunch of back and forth on the talk page that got nowhere. There was a point when one of the pages had both a "needs content merged from" and "should be merged to" tags on it. Finally, it was decided to make "Halifax" a disambiguation page, and "Halifax, Nova Scotia" the page on the city in Nova Scotia.

* Kmweber, a user around 2007-08 who had a grudge against the "notability" guidelines (which I admit can be byzantine at times -- tl;dr version is basically "have several independent, reliable sources discussed this topic in-depth?") and would spam deletion discussions with "It clearly exists, nothing else matters" despite this flying in the face of Wikipedia guidelines. I believe on at least one occasion, he said this in one article whose subject was later blatantly proven to be an outright hoax. He also directly opposed anyone who nominated themselves for administration, no matter how obviously good-faith the nomination was, simply on the grounds that he found self-nomination inherently egotistical (he would literally copy-paste " I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger." every time). He also blatantly refused to put categories in any new article he made, saying that he just didn't want to learn the category hierarchy, even though most other users figure out at least the basics within a few months. He eventually left.

* I maintain articles on country music artists, and noticed that one editor kept removing valid, sourced information from a certain artist's biography -- namely, that he cut two duets with another artist before recording any material of his own, plus the names of his two children, even though both of these facts had reputable sources verifying them. After his account kept getting blocked, he Facebook stalked me and demanded a cease and desist. I politely told him that Wikipedia does not remove information from biographical articles simply because the subject wants to, unless there is reason to believe that the content would be harmful. I told him that I agreed that removing his children's name from the article was reasonable since it protects the identity of a minor, but he refused to give me any reason why the information about the duets was so offensive as to warrant removal (it's not like he had an affair with the artist, the material was controversial, or anything). Another representative of this artist contacted me, and after I told him the same thing, he was more accepting. The information on the duets is still in the article.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Carpenter Trout, Troonologist PhD, The Cunting Death and 12 others
Tehshigelisok said:
I've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and I've seen some dumb shit in my day. To wit:

* For about five years, both "Halifax" and "Halifax, Nova Scotia" were disambiguation pages pointing to various political divisions of Halifax, Nova Scotia, but this was just confusing everyone since no single page seemed to be about JUST the community of Halifax. It led to a bunch of back and forth on the talk page that got nowhere. There was a point when one of the pages had both a "needs content merged from" and "should be merged to" tags on it. Finally, it was decided to make "Halifax" a disambiguation page, and "Halifax, Nova Scotia" the page on the city in Nova Scotia.

* Kmweber, a user around 2007-08 who had a grudge against the "notability" guidelines (which I admit can be byzantine at times -- tl;dr version is basically "have several independent, reliable sources discussed this topic in-depth?") and would spam deletion discussions with "It clearly exists, nothing else matters" despite this flying in the face of Wikipedia guidelines. I believe on at least one occasion, he said this in one article whose subject was later blatantly proven to be an outright hoax. He also directly opposed anyone who nominated themselves for administration, no matter how obviously good-faith the nomination was, simply on the grounds that he found self-nomination inherently egotistical (he would literally copy-paste " I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger." every time). He also blatantly refused to put categories in any new article he made, saying that he just didn't want to learn the category hierarchy, even though most other users figure out at least the basics within a few months. He eventually left.

* I maintain articles on country music artists, and noticed that one editor kept removing valid, sourced information from a certain artist's biography -- namely, that he cut two duets with another artist before recording any material of his own, plus the names of his two children, even though both of these facts had reputable sources verifying them. After his account kept getting blocked, he Facebook stalked me and demanded a cease and desist. I politely told him that Wikipedia does not remove information from biographical articles simply because the subject wants to, unless there is reason to believe that the content would be harmful. I told him that I agreed that removing his children's name from the article was reasonable since it protects the identity of a minor, but he refused to give me any reason why the information about the duets was so offensive as to warrant removal (it's not like he had an affair with the artist, the material was controversial, or anything). Another representative of this artist contacted me, and after I told him the same thing, he was more accepting. The information on the duets is still in the article.
Click to expand...

I can see why there would be confusion about Halifax, as Halifax itself ceased to existed when it and the surrounding areas amalgamated into the Halifax Regional Municipality.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Mr. Awesome Man, NoFeline and 3 others
That seedfeeder dude who drew the pictures for "fisting", "cum facial" and the pages for countless other sexual activities is apparently retired, and has been for four years.

upload_2016-6-16_17-22-43.png

Christ how horrifying.

"So long and thanks for all the fish" is a cliché nerd phrase from the Hitchhiker's Galaxy, but the particular subject matter that he specialized in would almost make me inclined to think that "fish" is an euphemism for—ah—
 
  • Informative
  • Horrifying
  • Winner
Reactions: Carpenter Trout, UnsufficentBoobage, NoFeline and 8 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back