Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Lucille Bluth]

I'm pretty sure Brianna Wu isn't listed as a troon because no formal, "reliable source" has outed him as a tranny. I've tried looking and all that comes up, aside from Kiwi Farms, is questions on Reddit, YouTube/Twitter comments and so on.

It would have to be from a source that Wiki users like. Lia Thomas's talk page has decided to omit any mention of the comments made by fellow swimmer Riley Gaines because it might "hurt" his reputation and they rely on Fox News, which apparently isn't good enough when it's used for "contentious" topics. I don't even think there's any mention of William / Lia's fetish Instagram account that was covered last month.

 

[WhiteNight]

I'm pretty sure Brianna Wu isn't listed as a troon because no formal, "reliable source" has outed him as a tranny. I've tried looking and all that comes up, aside from Kiwi Farms, is questions on Reddit, YouTube/Twitter comments and so on.

Brianna Wu is not out, though everyone with eyes must know. In fact he worked to hide his transition (including telling the likely lie about being adopted) with the help of social media companies. As I recall, back in the day you could get banned from Twitter merely for posting this image:

Wikipedia will of course always service trannies' desires. That's likely why any mention of his being a troon is redacted from the talk pages. Plus, it would damage the absurd narrative that Gamergate is all about hating and harassing women if it were noticed that one of the main "women" is actually a gross lying fetishist man.

 

[teriyakiburns]

This is in no way anything like Olde English.

I meant middle, no idea why I said old. and I was talking more about it's vocabulary and some grammatical constructions, as it uses a lot of words that have left modern English but are still used in other Germanic languages. Sorry for not making that clear.

I have a hard time believing a person born in Scotland would have a hard time reading the English version of Wikipedia.

There is a reason I compared it to the Scandinavian languages. The separation between Scots and English is essentially the same as between Norwegian and Swedish (and Danish, to a lesser extent). Nobody would dispute that they're separate languages, but they're mutually intelligible and each can read the others written language with relative ease.

 

[Kulee Baba]

Tell me you understand this completely.

I'm just arguing that a Scots English Wikipedia is pointless, only made to serve the e-peen of autists who get off on saying they've contributed to a Wikipedia page.

If someone wants to read about Pope Benedict and they know Scots English they'll read the English Wikipedia page.

 

[WhiteNight]

Look I'm not saying it's not a dialect, I just don't think this remotely warrants its own Wikipedia. I have a hard time believing a person born in Scotland would have a hard time reading the English version of Wikipedia.

This is irrelevant. Scots is absolutely a real language, with a community of speakers who appreciate having resources available in their native tongue. Yes it is similar to English, but lots of languages are similar to each other, and people would still prefer to read in their own. Written Scots is even closer to English because they've copied English spellings for many non-basic words, mostly for pedagogical reasons. But it's still distinct.

Language identities can be tricky and even political sometimes ("dialect with an army and a navy"), but this case is pretty clear-cut.

Wikipedia makes a lot of retarded decisions, but this is one I agree with. If a community of speakers wants to collaborate on an encyclopedia in their native language, Wikipedia should absolutely provide a space for them to do so.

 

[Kulee Baba]

This is irrelevant. Scots is absolutely a real language, with a community of speakers who appreciate having resources available in their native tongue. Yes it is similar to English, but lots of languages are similar to each other, and people would still prefer to read in their own. Written Scots is even closer to English because they've copied English spellings for many non-basic words, mostly for pedagogical reasons. But it's still distinct.

Language identities can be tricky and even political sometimes ("dialect with an army and a navy"), but this case is pretty clear-cut.

Wikipedia makes a lot of retarded decisions, but this is one I agree with. If a community of speakers wants to collaborate on an encyclopedia in their native language, Wikipedia should absolutely provide a space for them to do so.

You make a compelling argument. I guess I'd just be less cynical on it if it focused on Scottish culture itself though.

Because again if you know Scottish English chances are you're fluent in Modern English. I can't imagine there being a school where people only speak Scots.

 

[Sayer of the N-Word]

I'm pretty sure Brianna Wu isn't listed as a troon because no formal, "reliable source" has outed him as a tranny. I've tried looking and all that comes up, aside from Kiwi Farms, is questions on Reddit, YouTube/Twitter comments and so on.

Yeah, that's what I said, but I was more curious about how they reacted to people sharing that fact anywhere on Wikipedia, and it was really surprising when I came up with next to nothing. No trolls going to the talk page and saying "hey, is Brianna a tranny?" or adding a tranny category to the article. This is despite the fact that he deliberately mixed himself up in GG stuff when it was at its peak and there were tons of trolls on Wikipedia who would normally love to fuck with an article like this.

 

[Molesting the Decapitated]

Gamergate was the first completely deceptive article I noticed on Wikipedia. Now we have so many including the one on Kiwi Farms.

It's because it's written by trigged faggots who have no life outside the internet and white knighting for women and troons who are incapable of taking any responsibility for their own retarded actions. It's all written in a very biased point of view - which is completely fucking against Wikipedia's very own guideline btw, they used to (for the most part) follow this rule, but not anymore.

But if you want to see some erroneous article about something that isn't (necessarily) written in a biased point of view, but still for the most part "deceptive" then check this article out. it's about an event surrounding a family which paints them in a shameful light that used media and emergency service to get famous, but yet there's more than enough plausible evidence to argue otherwise when you watch this. Not that the idiots who patrol the article will ever care tho.

Also it's worth noting even the governor of Colorado pardoned the family for this conviction recently because even he was on their side

 

[Corpun]

There's a Turkish article on him, it's pretty short but tells all you need to know about him. No political sperging, just calls him a "far right conspiracy theorist, Trump supporter and climate activist" basically.

Jake Angeli - Vikipedi

tr.wikipedia.org

Is it safe to say that foreign wikipedia pages are heavily edited by Amerimutts? Or at least the heavily political articles are?

Can you retards take your autistic slapfighting about Scots somewhere else?

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Depends on the language and the level of american influence on the nation/language. However local wikipedias have their own political comissars pushing their own sperging on the local articles. So for example in the Portuguese wikipedia you have a lot of butthurt brazilian progressives bitching about Bolsonaro and the Military dictatorship.

 

[JJLiautaud]

Depends on the language and the level of american influence on the nation/language. However local wikipedias have their own political comissars pushing their own sperging on the local articles. So for example in the Portuguese wikipedia you have a lot of butthurt brazilian progressives bitching about Bolsonaro and the Military dictatorship.

Isnt brazilian portugese different enough from mainland portugese to be almost a different language?

 

[WhiteNight]

If you're interested in the debate about what languages should get their own Wikipedia, browse a few discussions here:

Requests for new languages - Meta

meta.wikimedia.org

Common themes are (a) is it different enough from an existing project language, and (b) are there enough speakers to maintain an encyclopedia?

Can you retards take your autistic slapfighting about Scots somewhere else?

Whether a Scots Wikipedia should exist is on topic for this thread.

 

[lolcow yoghurt]

Is it safe to say that foreign wikipedia pages are heavily edited by Amerimutts? Or at least the heavily political articles are?

I don't think so. They'd have to use Google Translate which gives false positives when you translate from Turkish to English and English to Turkish machine translations are very obvious from grammar and spelling (just like how trannies can be clocked, a native speaker can tell).
Therefore, Amerimutts have no control over it.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Isnt brazilian portugese different enough from mainland portugese to be almost a different language?

Not really. It used to have a lot of grammatical differences that made it quite annoying to read but over the years the Lusosphere has moved to standardize the spellings everywhere. Accents are the biggest difference, as are expressions and slang. But in a more academic setting it is mostly interchangeable. That said you will find pages where they specify if it is Portuguese portuguese or Brazilian portuguese or others in some issue, like how in regular english wiki you have the names for US, UK and other regional english dialects shown.

 

[AnOminous]

Common themes are (a) is it different enough from an existing project language, and (b) are there enough speakers to maintain an encyclopedia?

They should unironically have an AAVE Wikipedia, considering some of the utter nonsense they actually do have.

 

[JJLiautaud]

They should unironically have an AAVE Wikipedia, considering some of the utter nonsense they actually do have.

Niggers dont use computers to edit wikipedia so it fails b

 

[General Emílio Médici]

They should unironically have an AAVE Wikipedia, considering some of the utter nonsense they actually do have.

Pidgin wikipedia now

 

[Corpun]

They should unironically have an AAVE Wikipedia, considering some of the utter nonsense they actually do have.

I'd write articles on that until Wikipedia jannies ban me for racism just for writing things out phonetically.

 

[ConsentAccidentVictimNo98]

I remember a ton of people on the gamergate subreddit posted their political compass test results and most were LibLeft. Good old days when admitting that a woman could be in the wrong did not make you a Nazi incel

I actually recall reading an academic article like 5 months ago on Gamergate because I got bored and I was intending to use it when I eventually got back to writing my own "history of the internet", with this taking empirical data with 725 participants to whom identified with the term "Gamergate", with these being recruited from Twitter and "Kotaku In Action" (reddit) with this being back in 2015-2016 with the study tracing support of Gamergate to at least 1 month before the study began. The article itself is called: "Who Are GamerGate? A Descriptive Study of Individuals Involved in the GamerGate Controversy"

Spoiler: Tables for those that are interested

I actually found it quite interesting that 3% of the population identifying as being in support of GG were trans and that over a quarter of the population in the this being not straight.

Spoiler: Part of the conclusion

It's sort of hilarious to me that with this article we essentially get evidence to suggest that Gamergate was a left-wing movement. So Kiwi Bros, let's trust the science (unlike Wikipedia) and acknowledge that Gamergate was actually a left wing movement and that it was a propaganda effort to create the idea that it was a right-wing scheme. Wikipedia needs to start using ACTUAL sources.
The DOI for those that are interested: 10.1037/ppm0000280

 

[EpicGamerMoment]

I actually recall reading an academic article like 5 months ago on Gamergate because I got bored and I was intending to use it when I eventually got back to writing my own "history of the internet", with this taking empirical data with 725 participants to whom identified with the term "Gamergate", with these being recruited from Twitter and "Kotaku In Action" (reddit) with this being back in 2015-2016 with the study tracing support of Gamergate to at least 1 month before the study began. The article itself is called: "Who Are GamerGate? A Descriptive Study of Individuals Involved in the GamerGate Controversy"

Spoiler: Tables for those that are interested

View attachment 4769726

View attachment 4769734

I actually found it quite interesting that 3% of the population identifying as being in support of GG were trans and that over a quarter of the population in the this being not straight.

Spoiler: Part of the conclusion

View attachment 4769753

It's sort of hilarious to me that with this article we essentially get evidence to suggest that Gamergate was a left-wing movement. So Kiwi Bros, let's trust the science (unlike Wikipedia) and acknowledge that Gamergate was actually a left wing movement and that it was a propaganda effort to create the idea that it was a right-wing scheme. Wikipedia needs to start using ACTUAL sources.
The DOI for those that are interested: 10.1037/ppm0000280

That was my main point with that comment. Mainstream talking heads may have gladly painted GG as some incel nazi movement at the time but those actually involved know it was an moderate/apolitical movement. Back then not everything was divided by political lines so movements like this could actually happen.