Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

It's the anniversary of 2022 Buffalo shooting and I ended up on the wiki page.

1715700454504.png


No words.
 
  • Lunacy
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Lemon-Lime Turpentine, Pedophobe, scallion and 17 others
It's the overabundance of citations that really adds the chef's kiss here. When you compare this to serious articles like World War 2, Ovis Aries, Pythagoras Theorem and such you would never see such a orgy of random garbage thrown as proof. Because truth stands on it's own, but bullshit needs volume to make itself sound real.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Dr. Butt, Niggggger, BIGGEST BOY and 16 others
General Emílio Médici said:
It's the overabundance of citations that really adds the chef's kiss here. When you compare this to serious articles like World War 2, Ovis Aries, Pythagoras Theorem and such you would never see such a orgy of random garbage thrown as proof. Because truth stands on it's own, but bullshit needs volume to make itself sound real.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia forbids "original research", but wikipedos do this insidious thing where they add seven sources and parse together a sentence that didn't exist in any of the sources, and somehow it's not original research.

Example: Chud Wojak supported the nazis.[1][2][3]
[1]There was a presence of nazis in Wojak's hometown
[2]Wojak was very patriotic
[3]Nazis drew their support from patriots
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Niggggger, Instant_Pot_User, Punished Magician and 21 others
glue eater said:
It's the anniversary of 2022 Buffalo shooting and I ended up on the wiki page.

View attachment 5988455

No words.
Click to expand...
I'm just repeating myself at this point but the fact these fucks can get away with what is basically just libel is insane. This article is heavily implying Tucker was responsible for inspiring a racially motivated mass shooting when he had no part in it. I remember the Wikipedia page for Libsoftiktok all but stated she was a domestic terrorist or something like that and there is zero repercussions for them lying like this. No one is held responsible at all. They are allowed to lie and because the left dominates all the media in America save for Fox news they can just keep doing.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, lolcow yoghurt, Wright and 8 others
Didn't they also try to tie some mass shooting to libs of tiktok too? I know they tried extremely hard to paint her as a domestic terrorist on her Wikipedia page.
 
Sicko Hunter said:
I remember the Wikipedia page for Libsoftiktok all but stated she was a domestic terrorist or something like that and there is zero repercussions for them lying like this.
Click to expand...

There is this subsection:
lott.png


There is no evidence that the shooter was even remotely inspired by anything LoTT said or did. All Wikipedia offers is that she "received renewed media attention" after the shooting, and that she continued operating the account as normal afterwards. The nonsense concept of "stochastic terrorism" is invoked at the end, where by simply expressing an opinion you might inspire someone somewhere to violence and therefore it's all your fault.
 
  • Lunacy
  • Like
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: Lemon-Lime Turpentine, Hinttitroniikka, Flaming Insignias and 13 others
I've noticed this awhile back but don't think I have posted about this. In the articles for various elections, under endorsements, various editors will sometimes throw in negative statements about the endorser.



flynn.png


This edit (with the endorsement itself) was added here. In fact though, this is a false statement. General Flynn is not a convicted felon. His plea was never actually accepted by the court, as he withdrew it before sentencing. The government then dropped the case (after Barr reevaluated it as a non crime), but Trump pardoned him before it was completed. So in no sense is General Flynn a 'convicted felon'.

It isn't just Flynn though, this abusing of the endorsements category on various election pages to push POV, especially in 'wiki voice'. This being Wikipedia though, expect it to get worse.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Lemon-Lime Turpentine, Sexy Peach Emoji, Flaming Insignias and 14 others
BootlegPopeye said:
I've noticed this awhile back but don't think I have posted about this. In the articles for various elections, under endorsements, various editors will sometimes throw in negative statements about the endorser.



View attachment 5992146

This edit (with the endorsement itself) was added here. In fact though, this is a false statement. General Flynn is not a convicted felon. His plea was never actually accepted by the court, as he withdrew it before sentencing. The government then dropped the case (after Barr reevaluated it as a non crime), but Trump pardoned him before it was completed. So in no sense is General Flynn a 'convicted felon'.

It isn't just Flynn though, this abusing of the endorsements category on various election pages to push POV, especially in 'wiki voice'. This being Wikipedia though, expect it to get worse.
Click to expand...
Anyone Trump-adjacent who wasn't a total snake gets this treatment. It's why people act like Giuliani is literally Hitler and admonish him for cleaning up NYC back when he was mayor (Granted his actions during the 2020 election were very lazy), and Sotrmy Daniels, her now convict lawyer, and Michael Cohen get all the praise; as well as that Hohol general Alex Vindeman or whatever the fuck his name is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, UnsufficentBoobage, Da Capo and 2 others
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias, Your Landlord, Temperance and 2 others
This Wikipedia editor of 16 years wrote a long message to founder Jimmy Wales, explaining why they quit the site.

1715956043503.png


This took place a while ago, but for shits and giggles I checked toxic masculinity article, and they had added token "criticism" section which pretty much states "only alt right chuds dont think its real".
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Niggggger, geckogoy, Flaming Insignias and 12 others
WhiteNight said:
The Athaenara affair was discussed upthread when it happened.

Start here:

I summarize developments a few days later here:
Click to expand...

I thought it sounded familiar (IIRC, a few other terf-y users have been banned but I could not remember another admin), and while looking it up, I stumbled into this:

moretrannies.png


I love that on Wikipedia you can't 'canvass' ie, inform eligible voters (I am sure team tranny did, but not in public) .
 
glue eater said:
This Wikipedia editor of 16 years wrote a long message to founder Jimmy Wales, explaining why they quit the site.

View attachment 5996716

This took place a while ago, but for shits and giggles I checked toxic masculinity article, and they had added token "criticism" section which pretty much states "only alt right chuds dont think its real".
Click to expand...

Do you have the link for the original post? Tried looking for it on the user's page but couldn't find it.

It's a pretty decent summary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias and glue eater
I'm hearing from a couple of friends the current Wikipedo large scale flame war is the page for Yasuke after the trailer for the certainly mediocre next Assassins Creed. This is all in the span of six hours:
2hbivxxstn0d1.png
Some choice selections:
image.png
image2.png
This "theozilla" character types like a fag, and his shits probably retarded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niggggger, Pedophobe, Flaming Insignias and 4 others
This is a cross post from the Lucy Letby tread. A British nurse that was convicted of murering 26 babies, in a case that's started to look a bit iffy once american journalists started covering it.

It's since been edited but the bits about 'conspiracy theorists' and 'internet slueths' and the inferance that the experts weren't been trusted remains.


Someone on twitter did a nice comparison of the Wikipedia entry on letby which is based on the court record and the details given in the article.

Here's one example
The wikipedia entry.

1716061842095.png


Here's the article version of what happened.
young chestnut said:
Several days later, a woman came to the hospital after her water broke. She was sent home and told to wait. More than twenty-four hours later, she noticed that the baby was making fewer movements inside her. “I was concerned for infection because I hadn’t been given any antibiotics,” she said later. She returned to the hospital, but she still wasn’t given antibiotics. She felt “forgotten by the staff, really,” she said. Sixty hours after her water broke, she had a C-section. The baby, a girl who was dusky and limp when she was born, should have been treated with antibiotics immediately, doctors later acknowledged, but nearly four hours passed before she was given the medication. The next night, the baby’s oxygen alarm went off. “Called Staff Nurse Letby to help,” a nurse wrote. The baby continued to deteriorate throughout the night and could not be revived. A pathologist found pneumonia in the baby’s lungs and wrote that the infection was likely present at birth.
Click to expand...

Again example
Wikipedia
1716061850995.png


What actually happened.
young chestnut said:
First, a woman with antiphospholipid syndrome, a rare disorder that can cause blood clotting, was admitted to the hospital. She was thirty-one weeks pregnant with twins, and had planned to give birth in London, so that a specialist could monitor her and the babies, but her blood pressure had quickly risen, and she had to have an emergency C-section at the Countess. The next day, Letby was asked to cover a colleague’s night shift. She was assigned one of the twins, a boy, who has been called Child A. (The court order forbade identifying the children, their parents, and some nurses and doctors.) A nursing note from the day shift said that the baby had had “no fluids running for a couple of hours,” because his umbilical catheter, a tube that delivers fluids through the abdomen, had twice been placed in the wrong position, and “doctors busy.” A junior doctor eventually put in a longline, a thin tube threaded through a vein, and Letby and another nurse gave the child fluid. Twenty minutes later, Letby and a third nurse, a few feet away, noticed that his oxygen levels were dropping and that his skin was mottled. The doctor who had inserted the longline worried that he had placed it too close to the child’s heart, and he immediately took it out. But, less than ninety minutes after Letby started her shift, the baby was dead. “It was awful,” she wrote to a colleague afterward. “He died very suddenly and unexpectedly just after handover
Click to expand...

This is what Letby's fucking Barrister had to say in court. This is the quality of legal representation she had, this guy never even tried for an acquital.
young chestnut said:
Myers told the jury, “It’s important I make it plain that in no way is this case about the N.H.S. in general.” He assured the jury, “We all feel strongly about the N.H.S. and we are protective of it.”
Click to expand...

Wikipedia jannies are busy

This is from the talk page


An improvement to the first paragraph (made by another verified user, not me) was reverted by user cwmxii, and their explanation was the following:

This is giving unnecessary ground to the conspiracy theorists and truthers who've infested this article in the last few days, sorry.

This is an incredibly inappropriate explanation for a Wikipedia edit. This user did not dispute the reliability of the edit, the cited material, the prior explanation for the edit, or the importance of the edit. Their only explanation is that it "gives ground" to people that the user has baselessly deemed conspiracy theorists.

This is not the first time this has occurred. As a result, the opening section of the article is inaccurate. It is written as if there is no controversy whatsoever about the case which is not true, it inaccurately summarizes the facts about the shift schedule, and there is emotional writing rather than facts based writing. For example, the user deleted the phrase "who was convicted of murdering" and changed it to "who murdered" because it did not fit with their sensibilities, even though the prior version was factual, did not question the verdict, and actually was more informative (she was convicted by a jury for multiple murders, which is more specific than the more vague phrase "who murdered").
Click to expand...

P
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Adrenochrome Dreams, Pedophobe, scallion and 9 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back