Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

StraightShooter said:
Yeah, I remember an old Wikipedia review thread where it was discovered that the artist of Wikipedia's "mascot" draws "loli porn" of prepubescent girls being raped. To be honest I'm not suprised given how Wikipedia seems to draw in fucked up times in general; I'm just surprised that the dysfunctionality of Wikipedia's community has never really made much media attention and that the website is still viewed as credible, but then again so is the US federal government.
Click to expand...

Because you wouldn't know by just looking at the articles. There isn't cartoon porn plastered all over the front page. With somewhere like TV Tropes the depravity is much more noticeable because the standards of professionalism in the content are far lower.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage, Syaoran Li and 5 others
Did you know 1 Night in Paris (Paris Hilton's sex tape) used to have an extremely detailed plot synopsis? I wish I didn't:

1 Night in Paris.png
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Kaiba Cuqk63, kittyhou, Blatant hypocrite and 17 others
TheImportantFart said:
Did you know 1 Night in Paris (Paris Hilton's sex tape) used to have an extremely detailed plot synopsis? I wish I didn't:

View attachment 201979
Click to expand...
Articles about Paris Hilton's sex tapes, Youtube Poop, and minor Sonic the Hedgehog characters are longer and better sourced than articles about Fortune 500 companies.
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Oats12345, UnsufficentBoobage and 5 others
AnOminous said:
Old but amusing idiotic argument about what picture to use for the article on the O RLY owl.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:O_RLY?
Click to expand...

the original image has an owl doing an "O RLY?" facial expression. If anything, this owl has more of a "deal with it" facial expression. If this were the "deal with it" owl that would be fine, but it's not. It's the "O RLY?" owl. That this image has survived on this page for so long is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

LOL :autism:
 
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Super Collie, BR55 and 6 others
This debate is kind of infamous on wikipedia so I apologize if it's already been posted here but I looked through the thread and didn't see it:

Both the articles about feces in general and human feces specifically have endured unending debates about whether images should be included and, if so, if the images should be representative of "normal" feces, demonstrate a spectrum of different types of feces, etc. Apparently the majority of wikipedians believe that "wikipedia is uncensored" equates to "there should be no accounting for taste, aesthetics or encyclopedic value and gross images should always be included without further consideration."
 
  • Winner
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: All-in-one Soap, Dockside Extortionist, Blatant hypocrite and 16 others
Cato said:
This debate is kind of infamous on wikipedia so I apologize if it's already been posted here but I looked through the thread and didn't see it:

Both the articles about feces in general and human feces specifically have endured unending debates about whether images should be included and, if so, if the images should be representative of "normal" feces, demonstrate a spectrum of different types of feces, etc. Apparently the majority of wikipedians believe that "wikipedia is uncensored" equates to "there should be no accounting for taste, aesthetics or encyclopedic value and gross images should always be included without further consideration."
Click to expand...

I think a good compromise would be putting the images under spoilers. It's reasonable for an encyclopedia to have an image of feces on the appropriate article.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage, Syaoran Li and 1 other person
Cato said:
This debate is kind of infamous on wikipedia so I apologize if it's already been posted here but I looked through the thread and didn't see it:

Both the articles about feces in general and human feces specifically have endured unending debates about whether images should be included and, if so, if the images should be representative of "normal" feces, demonstrate a spectrum of different types of feces, etc. Apparently the majority of wikipedians believe that "wikipedia is uncensored" equates to "there should be no accounting for taste, aesthetics or encyclopedic value and gross images should always be included without further consideration."
Click to expand...

This explains way too much about the nature of the Internet. It is spergs literally discussing shit. Like, discussions of whether or not it is appropriate to show pictures of shit, what kind of shit, and if it should be uncensored shit, all the way down.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage, Super Collie and 3 others
Krieger said:
This explains way too much about the nature of the Internet. It is spergs literally discussing shit. Like, discussions of whether or not it is appropriate to show pictures of shit, what kind of shit, and if it should be uncensored shit, all the way down.
Click to expand...

I wonder if any of them are coprophiles. It seems common among lolcows.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage, StraightShooter and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back