- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
How were the mules yelling racial slurs?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He did it for free.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
SpergioLeonne
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2022
If they turned back towards the union troops, they were obviously confederates from Narnia
KingLiberty76
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2022
Not Trump's biggest fan, but if you genuinely believe that Trump is a threat to the American Republic, your a damn idiot.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
Does anyone in this thread have an actual Wikipedia account that would be willing to try something for me? I have a silly idea, but it's for a living biography.
Edit: This request is purely scientific.
Edit: This request is purely scientific.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
Enthusiastically.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2021
Is the article for "hairnet" pro-hair-in-your-food propaganda?
There is no mention of any other reasons people might not want hair in their food. We're just all victims of anti-hair propaganda.
There is no mention of any other reasons people might not want hair in their food. We're just all victims of anti-hair propaganda.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2021
The linked articles are actually pretty interesting, but it’s really the first sentence of that paragraph that’s the problem: I was never under the impression that hair nets were to prevent “contamination,” but rather because having hair in your food is disgusting.
So, the article is setting up a premise I never thought was true, and then proving it wrong with incredibly specific citations, all while missing the obvious point that no one wants to suck down a long strand of hair with their soup.
Granted, it looks like that part was anonymously edited in a few years ago and just never challenged, so it probably wouldn’t be that hard to change if anyone cared enough.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
Standard procedure for deboonkers and fact checkers really. Using it on something like this highlights how stupid it is.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
This page on a band I saw mentioned in a tumblr post shittalking KISS has a page which is nothing but 'tism wall
BlueSpark
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
Brave Wikipedians protect Sartre's article from correctly labeling a pedophile for, amongst other things, signing a petition calling for child rape to be legalised:
The Wikipedo above is claiming that Satre was against age of consent laws being different for normal and homosexual sex and implying that Sartre didn't support child rape. However, that's a lie, as evidenced by Wikipedia's own article on the petition:
A different petition, supporting a pedophile who raped multiple girls between the ages of 6 and 12, was published in Sartre's newpaper, Liberation:
The Wikipedo above is claiming that Satre was against age of consent laws being different for normal and homosexual sex and implying that Sartre didn't support child rape. However, that's a lie, as evidenced by Wikipedia's own article on the petition:
A different petition, supporting a pedophile who raped multiple girls between the ages of 6 and 12, was published in Sartre's newpaper, Liberation:
Murenu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2022
Wikipedia has wonky, legalistic criteria for what constitutes a valid source. They say how wikipedia is "descriptive, not prescriptive", and I recall seeing a snapshot from a talk page where a wiki mod/admin flat out said it didn't matter if something was true or not, just that it met the technical criteria. This leads to wonky consistency problems where different wikipedia articles end up contradicting each other—either explicitly or implicitly—and you get groups labeled things that they obviously aren't simply because of the polarization of the current culture war.
For example, they flat out state Gays against Groomers and Project Veritas are "far right" (single-issue critical of trans ideology & generic conservative, respectively) presumably because enough "verified sources" have decided to slander them as such. I don't consider him far-right, but wikipedia strangely doesn't say Tucker Carlson is far-right, yet if anything you'd think he'd be far-right before the other examples I gave for his relatively recent views and statements. On the other hand, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) is labelled far-right, when he doesn't functionally have more extreme policy positions than a lot of conservatives. The given reason for why the stated positions of the party in question aren't a valid source is that "people/political parties can lie about their own positions", which is true, but on the flipside you have academics/"verified sources" implicitly assuming their positions without good proof, and then the can of worms of what the bare minimum of "far-right" constitutes. This shit is obviously a problem when you consider people essentially look to wikipedia as gospel to learn about the world nowadays.
Recently, I was skimming an article relating to race (I don't recall the exact one, but it was full of ostensible refutations of race science etc.) and it mentioned how the Nazi racial views weren't "white nationalism" but "nordicism" (correct), but then I recalled on the wiki article for white nationalism it listed the Nazi party as one of three examples of white nationalist movements that have led governments.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
Also all the girls he raped after his wife, noted feminist Simone de Beauvoir, groomed them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2024
One of the highest upvote trending posts currently on /r/europe.
Summary if you're not well versed in yuropoor catfights: everyone's retardedly nationalistic here and noone is being content with the fact that they're just slavic mutts: enter schizophrenic origin stories of nations. There's two hungarian autists who made it their life's goal to police the wikipedia article by not letting the supremely schizoid daco-roman continuity theory be stated as a fact (something that literally none of the reputable romanian historians even believe in despite it is taught en masse in textbooks), the theory is the equivalent of a hungarian that claims they're the linear descendant of Attila the hun. Of course this vile faggotry cannot go on any longer, and proud romanians have to enlist the leddit army to right this injustice.
Sargon's wife's son
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
You know the funniest thing about Wikipedia is you can literally be a hardcore traditionalist monarchist and before the right than the National Socialist German Workers Party and Wikipedia will label you a moderate conservative also I feel like half of Wikipedia's remaining right-wing population I said it earlier is just closeted
Do you know the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire was only possible due to a Hungarian Canon engineer being pissed off that the Eastern Roman Empire couldn't pay for some cannons so he sold his design to the Turks
The Romanians are truly Romans and hungarians all
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
So Hungarians are telling the truth for once? That's rare. Also I thought the Immigration Hypothesis was the academic consensus supported by both DNA evidence and linguistic evidence.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2024
Not sure what the first half of your post is in reference to. The Migration Hypothesis makes a lot more sense than the daco-roman continuity, the latter of which is only supported by the .jpg of a crack pipe. I think it's not an overly controversial fact that all the dacians were just fucking raped and murdered, if you want to be cool and not content on being a regular slavmutt just pretend you're a descendant of the actual conqueror romans who settled there afterwards, that makes significantly more sense.