Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Attachments

  • walloftext.png
    walloftext.png
    176.5 KB · Views: 62
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr, Drama Fan, Coo Coo Bird and 1 other person
Corpun said:
Low hanging fruit but take a gander at the list of people Trump pardoned. Aside from the obvious TDS you have massive explainations of literal whos about people he pardoned, like this random cop who's dog attacked a homeless beaner twenty years ago.
Click to expand...
No other president gets this treatment. For Obama (who granted clemency to an enormous number of people, 1927), the article lists some prominent cases, and beyond that simply gives counts of pardons and commutations:

Bush Jr.'s article might have a complete list (it's not clear), but the cases don't have the enormous detail Trump's do:

Clinton's has a large list (though it claims to be incomplete), and there is a separate article for controversies:

Bill Clinton pardon controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

There is an article for Bush Sr. with a complete list and few details on each case:

There don't appear to be any other pardon lists by president. Prior presidents are gathered in this omnibus article:
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr, Drama Fan, Neo-Liberal Bugman and 4 others
WhiteNight said:
No other president gets this treatment.
Click to expand...
Just a few days ago this was posted. Which one of you is Lee Fang?
An independent journalist just exposed Wikipedia for allowing Biden entries to be manipulated.

A new report revealed Wikipedia’s permissive role in the concerted effort to protect President Joe Biden by blocking Americans from reading politically-negative information tied to his embattled son. According to data entries reviewed by independent journalist Lee Fang, Wikipedia allowed special consultants “hired” by Hunter Biden to manipulate the “Hunter Biden” page with “stealth edits.” Wikipedia, a site funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, seemingly stood idly by as entries tying Hunter to damning bribery scandals were edited “without any fingerprints.”

As reported by Fang, Hunter ordered FTI Consulting, a crisis management public relations firm, in 2014 to help him and his dad save face by keeping Americans from accessing the Bidens’ ties to shady business dealings on Wikipedia. In one email, Hunter advised Ryan Toohey, then an advisor at FTI, that Eric Schwerin, a business partner of the Bidens, would be making “additional edits.” According to Fang, “Toohey, emails from Hunter’s laptop show, confirmed that his company would get to work.”

According to Fang, Hunter also inexplicably pushed to delete the ties between the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy, a company he worked for, highlighting instead his board memberships at non-profits. Shortly thereafter, countless anonymous users in Wikipedia followed suit and proceeded to “airbrush” negative references on Hunter’s page.

MRC Free Speech America reached out to Toohey inquiring whether Wikipedia or President Biden were aware of the alleged manipulation but did not receive a response prior to publication.

While it is not immediately clear whether Wikipedia played an active role in the alleged effort to protect the Bidens, the infamous online user-generated encyclopedia has been known for its peddling of leftist ideology.

Since 2020, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has blasted Wikipedia for its peddling of leftist propaganda. In a 2021 interview, Sanger blasted Wikipedia for protecting President Biden by withholding negative information. “The Biden article, if you look at it, has very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have had about him,” Sanger said at the time, in reference to Biden's Wikipedia page.

Notably, Wikipedia unleashed an “LGBTQ Grooming Conspiracy Theory” page in January 2023, associating conservative concerns with gender indoctrination to conspiratorial ideas. Similarly, Wikipedia protected the Biden regime’s disastrous economy by allowing at least 116 edits to the “recession” page.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: George Geef, Flaming Insignias, Neo-Liberal Bugman and 5 others
Flexo said:
Notably, Wikipedia unleashed an “LGBTQ Grooming Conspiracy Theory” page in January 2023, associating conservative concerns with gender indoctrination to conspiratorial ideas. Similarly, Wikipedia protected the Biden regime’s disastrous economy by allowing at least 116 edits to the “recession” page.
Click to expand...
The thing is, these articles are only the tip of the iceberg. Almost every other political article on Wikipedia now has extreme levels of bias.

Even non-political articles get woke talking points injected randomly into them. There are several examples in this thread. However, I just looked again at "Bag of holding" and the white privilege non sequitur has at least been removed.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Vecr, Saddam Hussain Obama, Flaming Insignias and 9 others
AnOminous said:
A term used mostly by communist pederasts to insist that you didn't mean the sensible thing you actually said, but some insane thing they made up to make you look crazy. You somehow telepathically communicated this to your brainwashed minions, rather than saying the words you actually said.
Click to expand...
It's a derogatory term for implicit communication, something leftists are envious about because it's impossible for them since their entire world view is built on contrived selective contextualization rather than universal human experience.

Also a challenge to explicitly say something you could get fired for once you're doxxed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Flaming Insignias and FuckedOffToff
  • Lunacy
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Vecr, lolcow yoghurt, Drama Fan and 8 others
Save the Loli said:
>conservative news outlets trying to introduce him to the public

Meanwhile when a troon's journo buddies astroturf "her" some articles, that's totally different and said troon needs a giant Wikipedia puff piece.
Click to expand...
You probably already know this, but for those new to the thread, WP:RS/P has a long list of sources that Wikipedians do and do not consider "reliable". And most of the conservative sources you would think of are in the latter category.

Wikipedia's bias often has to be seen to be believed, but this is one of the best places to see it.

Screenshot 2023-08-21 at 18.26.07 copy.png

And some of the stuff on there is common sense - it's good practice to not citing sources that consist mostly of user-generated content. Wikipedians also avoid circular referencing, etc, so no citing wikis, etc. It's just the pro-MSM bias that is disappointing. Like when Breitbart gets a big scary deprecation notice. And shitrags like Buzzfeed News get approval. Heck, even gutter trash like Bustle gets a maybe at worst from these cretins.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: The Jesus Lizard, N Space, Vecr and 9 others
DoubleD said:
You probably already know this, but for those new to the thread, WP:RS/P has a long list of sources that Wikipedians do and do not consider "reliable". And most of the conservative sources you would think of are in the latter category.

Wikipedia's bias often has to be seen to be believed, but this is one of the best places to see it.
Click to expand...

They had been trying to make this a thing all the way back in the 2000s with the 'Faux News' meme. Believe me, that's the entire reason this list was created was to eventually blacklist it. Notice also that tabloids are treated in list as though they are the National Inquirer, rather than just a common newspaper format.

Some of the 'generally reliable' sources are major howlers; Jacobin is reliable?
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef, Vecr, lolcow yoghurt and 4 others
DoubleD said:
Wikipedia's bias often has to be seen to be believed, but this is one of the best places to see it.
Click to expand...
I like that their main gripe about Breitbart is it has published accurate information about Wikipedia and they have a policy that nothing negative is allowed to be said about their cult.
BootlegPopeye said:
Some of the 'generally reliable' sources are major howlers; Jacobin is reliable?
Click to expand...
They do rate a major commie source, CounterPunch, as unreliable, but they tend to gore conventional libtards pretty often, a major example being their extremely well-researched article on Kurt Eichenwald's participation in the distribution of child pornography and payoffs of sources.

But citing bellingcat (glowingcat), a CIA propaganda outlet, is totally fine.

The list itself isn't actually as bad as I thought it would be (although it is pretty bad). Its application is really inconsistent, though, and I can't count all the times I've seen shitty personal blogs or even tweets cited as proof of facts, even though they're both primary sources and opinionated by definition.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Vecr, UnsufficentBoobage, Flaming Insignias and 2 others
AnOminous said:
But citing bellingcat (glowingcat), a CIA propaganda outlet, is totally fine.
Click to expand...

You'd think the editors would be suspicious that Bellingcat only produces reports about 'official enemies' of the Atlanticist ruling class, never any original reporting about other topics. It's not even really that opaque - I knew it was an Intelligence Community front within 1 min of having first read anything by them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Coo Coo Bird and AnOminous
WhiteNight said:
The thing is, these articles are only the tip of the iceberg. Almost every other political article on Wikipedia now has extreme levels of bias.

Even non-political articles get woke talking points injected randomly into them. There are several examples in this thread. However, I just looked again at "Bag of holding" and the white privilege non sequitur has at least been removed.
Click to expand...
Speaking of cOnSpIrAcy ThEoRiEs, I was just about to post that little gem from the James Lindsay article | a :
Lindsay has promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which alleges a concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to infiltrate academic and cultural institutions in order to destroy Western civilization. The theory has been wholly rejected by mainstream scholars, and has been characterized as antisemitic by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others.
Click to expand...
>alleges a concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to infiltrate academic and cultural institutions
>The theory has been wholly rejected by members of academic and cultural institutions mainstream scholars
:story:
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr, UnsufficentBoobage, Flaming Insignias and 4 others
General Emílio Médici said:
Because Wikipedos agree with them obviously. They changed Wikileaks to be untrustworthy as soon as Assange dared to ruin Her Turn for example.
Click to expand...
Assange didn't even do that. She was just a genuinely unlikeable candidate, pushed excessively wokeshit, had one of the worst run campaigns I've ever seen (thanks Bobby Mook), insulted the Democratic base, and just bungled it every step of the way. It's sort of like blaming Jimmy Carter losing on some "October Surprise" nonsense, when he lost by one of the biggest electoral landslides in history.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: George Geef, Vecr, UnsufficentBoobage and 6 others
I am not saying that is what happened, I am saying that is the sort of cope they come up with. Remember: these are the people that insist Obama had a "scandal free presidency" and shit like that, they craft whole new realities.

They got really salty about Assange and Wikileaks because they kept throwing wrenches in the gears. It was all fine and dandy when it was leaking Bush administration gaffes, but he kept reporting on the US government after Obama got in and that started annoying them. 2016 just gave them the final push to claim it as not trustworthy because of her e-mails. If you look on the arguments the entire thing boils down to "well they have never been wrong but I FEEL like they are slimy so we label it untrustworthy now!"
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef, Vecr, lolcow yoghurt and 5 others
General Emílio Médici said:
I am not saying that is what happened, I am saying that is the sort of cope they come up with. Remember: these are the people that insist Obama had a "scandal free presidency" and shit like that, they craft whole new realities.

They got really salty about Assange and Wikileaks because they kept throwing wrenches in the gears. It was all fine and dandy when it was leaking Bush administration gaffes, but he kept reporting on the US government after Obama got in and that started annoying them. 2016 just gave them the final push to claim it as not trustworthy because of her e-mails. If you look on the arguments the entire thing boils down to "well they have never been wrong but I FEEL like they are slimy so we label it untrustworthy now!"
Click to expand...
It's this meme from years ago
IMG_6370.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr, lolcow yoghurt, UnsufficentBoobage and 1 other person
DoubleD said:
You probably already know this, but for those new to the thread, WP:RS/P has a long list of sources that Wikipedians do and do not consider "reliable". And most of the conservative sources you would think of are in the latter category.

Wikipedia's bias often has to be seen to be believed, but this is one of the best places to see it.

View attachment 5286651

And some of the stuff on there is common sense - it's good practice to not citing sources that consist mostly of user-generated content. Wikipedians also avoid circular referencing, etc, so no citing wikis, etc. It's just the pro-MSM bias that is disappointing. Like when Breitbart gets a big scary deprecation notice. And shitrags like Buzzfeed News get approval. Heck, even gutter trash like Bustle gets a maybe at worst from these cretins.
Click to expand...
heres the trusted sources Screenshot 2023-08-23 144104.pngScreenshot 2023-08-23 144032.pngScreenshot 2023-08-23 144006.pngScreenshot 2023-08-23 143952.png
The Mary Sue is a crazy tranny publication, and Jacobin they literally admit is biased but still cite them.
 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: N Space, Dededon't, lolcow yoghurt and 11 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back