Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[bush911]

I was reading Wikipedia, and I decided to use Google rookie mistake. I know I forgot what I was googling. I think I was trying to find news on Trump, and Google had a popup saying how to register to vote. I clicked it. Google then suggested mail-in ballots as the best option while also leaving open the idea of registering in person, so already it's biased towards Democrats and mail-ins. I then clicked on Wikipedia's article, and low and behold, the most biased article in Wikipedia history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

Im not going to go into extensive detail as it would be a pain, but I will leave you with this excerpt comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler.

 

[glue eater]

I was reading Wikipedia, and I decided to use Google rookie mistake. I know I forgot what I was googling. I think I was trying to find news on Trump, and Google had a popup saying how to register to vote. I clicked it. Google then suggested mail-in ballots as the best option while also leaving open the idea of registering in person, so already it's biased towards Democrats and mail-ins. I then clicked on Wikipedia's article, and low and behold, the most biased article in Wikipedia history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

Im not going to go into extensive detail as it would be a pain, but I will leave you with this excerpt comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler.
View attachment 6424587

Ah yes, the famous "neutral point of view".

 

[WhiteNight]

What article is this from? I don't see it on either the Trump or the election article.

 

[glue eater]

What article is this from? I don't see it on either the Trump or the election article.

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[WhiteNight]

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That article has been discussed in this thread.

A few months ago, there was a talk consensus to delete the "Scholar surveys of diversity and racism" section on the grounds that it is only about a single aspect of a president, whereas the article is about evaluation as a whole, and also that the sourcing is poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=1219919941

Well, unsurprisingly, a few editors decided it should be brought back. There were back-and-forth edits, the latest proclaiming "restore per long-standing consensus" and keeping it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=1237276039

Discussion seems to have died down; the force of Wikipedia's far left editors to push this garbage overrides actual policy. Then a Wikipedo added that photo and caption to drive the point that Trump is rayciss.

 

[AnOminous]

Discussion seems to have died down; the force of Wikipedia's far left editors to push this garbage overrides actual policy. Then a Wikipedo added that photo and caption to drive the point that Trump is rayciss.

It's not really the own they think it is to include Andrew Jackson, who is well regarded by many people to this day. I'm not a fan, but comparing the guy you think is mega-Hitler to someone who is still on the $20 bill is pretty bad propaganda. I guess they figure they only need appeal to their own deranged echo chamber.

Similarly, while Johnson was incredibly ineffective, this was largely because he was crippled by a politically motivated impeachment under a law now regarded as flagrantly unconstitutional (the Tenure of Office Act). Gee, I wonder how that's similar to a current President being held responsible for an "insurrection" for rhetoric telling his supporters to march on D.C.

It's not just propaganda, it's really bad propaganda.

 

[LaxerBRO]

View attachment 6424794
View attachment 6424796

Ah yes, the famous "neutral point of view".

Funny that FDR is absolved of interning Japanese Americans in the sources that were chosen by the editors.

I thought the Japanese were in concentration camps per the left wing hysteria about ICE detention centers.

FDR appointed a "former" Klan member to the Supreme Court as well

Additionally, FDR snubbed Jesse Owens a Black Olympic gold medalist.

Finally, FDR turned away a boat full of Jews escaping NAZI Germany.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Fucking criple fuck made Woodrow Wilson look good. His damage has permanently scarred the USA.

 

[bush911]

View attachment 6424794
View attachment 6424796

Ah yes, the famous "neutral point of view".

This reminds me of the article comparing ice facilities to forced labor camps for Jews.

It's not really the own they think it is to include Andrew Jackson, who is well regarded by many people to this day. I'm not a fan, but comparing the guy you think is mega-Hitler to someone who is still on the $20 bill is pretty bad propaganda. I guess they figure they only need appeal to their own deranged echo chamber.

The people who write Wikipedia think Jackson is the heckin racist chud who murdered Native Americans for no reason, so it works.

 

[AnOminous]

The people who write Wikipedia think Jackson is the heckin racist chud who murdered Native Americans for no reason, so it works.

I think the way we treated the Cherokee in particular, shredding our treaties with them despite them having actually lived up to their end, was shameful and dishonorable. That said, not a President from George Washington on hadn't done similar things.

 

[WhiteNight]

Walton and Smith's retarded lists include 17 presidents as both "white supremacist" and "institutionally racist" yet the image picks only three to represent this combination: the two Andrews and Trump.

As an editorial decision, it makes no sense to single out this small sample. It likely represents the personal views, and antipathy towards these three, of User:Jengod, who added the image and the edit.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Walton and Smith's retarded lists include 17 presidents as both "white supremacist" and "institutionally racist" yet the image picks only three to represent this combination: the two Andrews and Trump.

As an editorial decision, it makes no sense to single out this small sample. It likely represents the personal views, and antipathy towards these three, of User:Jengod, who added the image and the edit.

I've run into Jengod before, she has a hobby horse for the history of slavery in the US (obviously a legitimate subject) but down to the level of relatively minor figures connected to it (such as barely notable slave traders). Then she has theories like this:

If you look at the articles that are largely written by her, they sound unencyclopedic and just downright badly written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robards%E2%80%93Donelson%E2%80%93Jackson_relationship_controversy

That said, historians Robert V. Remini and Ann Toplovich argue effectively that the official Jackson version of their meeting and marriage, as presented during the election of 1828 is, for the most part, bunkum.

She is mentioned a few times on Wikipedia Sucks (main wikipedia criticism site now), where it is claimed that she is a journalist in LA (but real name unknown) as well as the main contributor to the NAFO article.

 

[Eternal Gopnik]

I've run into Jengod before, she has a hobby horse for the history of slavery in the US (obviously a legitimate subject) but down to the level of relatively minor figures connected to it (such as barely notable slave traders). Then she has theories like this:

View attachment 6426619

If you look at the articles that are largely written by her, they sound unencyclopedic and just downright badly written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robards%E2%80%93Donelson%E2%80%93Jackson_relationship_controversy

She is mentioned a few times on Wikipedia Sucks (main wikipedia criticism site now), where it is claimed that she is a journalist in LA (but real name unknown) as well as the main contributor to the NAFO article.

From "her" (we sure it's not a fat hairy dude?) user page, under "Work: Articles created 2024":



Good to know an assassination attempt on a presidential candidate doesn't meet notability requirements as per a bunch of wikipedos, but Tom Holland's Lip Sync Battle performance of "Umbrella" does. Never change, Wikipedia.

 

[glue eater]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rejected_AfC_submissions

I really wasn't kidding when I said the Wikipedia playpen for newbies is full of Rampreet making articles about their brother's call center in Poojay, Uttar Pradesh.

 

[SuccubusFeeder]

View attachment 6424794

I'm used to Wikipedia just lying by omission or using language "tricks" (eg: refusing to call castro a dictator, calling certain terrorist groups "militants"), but this is too much even for them.

Anyways, today I learned that an unfunny twitter troon, tyler gregory sternbach (@canteverdie) has an entire wikipedia page.

most of this guy's posts revolve around wanting to genocide White and non-troons btw

 

[AprilRains]

I'm used to Wikipedia just lying by omission or using language "tricks" (eg: refusing to call castro a dictator, calling certain terrorist groups "militants"), but this is too much even for them.

Anyways, today I learned that an unfunny twitter troon, tyler gregory sternbach (@canteverdie) has an entire wikipedia page.
View attachment 6436904
most of this guy's posts revolve around wanting to genocide White and non-troons btw

How in the name of God is that notable?

 

[Toji Suzuhara]

How in the name of God is that notable?

Well, he's a troon and english Wikipedia is the tranny agitprop. Byuu has a page for that very same reason

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_(programmer)

 

[WhiteNight]

I'm used to Wikipedia just lying by omission or using language "tricks" (eg: refusing to call castro a dictator, calling certain terrorist groups "militants"), but this is too much even for them.

Anyways, today I learned that an unfunny twitter troon, tyler gregory sternbach (@canteverdie) has an entire wikipedia page.
View attachment 6436904
most of this guy's posts revolve around wanting to genocide White and non-troons btw

Link to actual article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junlper

How is a single reply tweet (unfunnily) mocking Musk encyclopedic? There are probably thousands of such tweets per day.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Because it furthers The Message.

One must understand when dealing with communists and their NGO skinsuits and fake experts: The problems they complain about are never the problems actually being talked about, it's capitalism. And the solution will ALWAYS be communism.

In this case, the "problem" is not a lack of information on subjects but in fact a insufficient amount of propaganda favorable towards Marxist goals and the neoliberal hegemony, and as such the solution is always to keep tipping the scales to push "correct opinions" more and more.

Remember: "The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false." It doesn't matter that you know it's bullshit and can prove it, point out the double standard, factually show the lie. The purpose of the system is being fulfilled and the jannies are complicit.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Remember: "The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false." It doesn't matter that you know it's bullshit and can prove it, point out the double standard, factually show the lie. The purpose of the system is being fulfilled and the jannies are complicit.

I don't understand why this is such a popular quote in this thread when it was made by a no-name IP editor.
From what I understand, it isn't about consensus, it's about providing what they deem reliable sources. Hell, they have a whole list on what they consider reliable and why. I've seen entire articles deleted because all the sources had a consensus, but those sources were deemed unreliable (usually India News Today or The Daily Mail)