Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Silence of the Troons]

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

Mormon pornography is a subgenre of pornography-themed around the Mormon religion. Journalist Isha Aran writes that the genre originated in 2010 with the launch of the gay porn site MormonBoyz.com, which portrays sexual relationships between Elders. The more recent site MormonGirlz.com features both straight and lesbian relationships between Mormon characters. Mormonboyz.com founder Legrand Wolf (which is not his real name[1] and proclaims himself under his false name to have graduated from BYU with a Doctorate Degree,[2] also claims himself to be an ex-Mormon).

Mormon pornography portrays both Mormon underwear and the secret rituals that take place in Mormon temples as erotic in nature. According to Aran, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself views Mormon pornography as blasphemous.[3]

 

[superscript]

Why even have an article about some nobody and exclude the only notable thing about her?

They were not going to exclude anything. There was an edit war which was resolved by agreeing on wording which the editors often do especially regarding living people. It's in the talk page.

Jeong is a blue checkmark with TDS desperate for more efame and is benefiting from double standards. But that's irrelevant to the point CHS made.

 

[AnOminous]

They were not going to exclude anything. There was an edit war which was resolved by agreeing on wording which the editors often do especially regarding living people. It's in the talk page.

Jeong is a blue checkmark with TDS desperate for more efame and is benefiting from double standards. But that's irrelevant to the point CHS made.

Looks to me like they shut numerous issues down with nothing but a comment the discussion was locked, specifically the Naomi Wu situation, though as far as I'm aware, she's a living person too.

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

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

Not gonna lie, I thought this would have been a thing way earlier and that it would have been Matt Stone and Trey Parker's fault thanks to Orgazmo.

 

[superscript]

Looks to me like they shut numerous issues down with nothing but a comment the discussion was locked, specifically the Naomi Wu situation, though as far as I'm aware, she's a living person too.

The editors sperged about wording for less than a day and then added it into the article, which is common in high drama biographies. Sargon's was locked in May because of edit wars. Accusations of racism of an American journalist are going to have more sperging and :autism: than whatever drama this Wu girl (Vice article in China?) is involved in.

Edit:
To get this back on track, Sargon's Talk pages are full of sperging about the definition of harassment to his heritage.

I used the term "black African," because that is what Benjamin himself uses, and describes his paternal grandfather as "fully black." He has never given an ethnic description of this black African grandfather.

 

[Some Random Soul]

Christina Hoff Sommers is now criticising Wikipedia's bias regarding the Sarah Jeong article:

View attachment 513343

Isn't shit like this why Conservapedia exists?

 

[TheImportantFart]

Isn't shit like this why Conservapedia exists?

Conservapedia is an utter shithole in its own right and is basically just the right-wing version of RationalWiki. In fact, RationalWiki was originally set up to parody Conservapedia until some SJW spergs missed the irony and took over the asylum.

 

[AnOminous]

Conservapedia is an utter shithole in its own right and is basically just the right-wing version of RationalWiki. In fact, RationalWiki was originally set up to parody Conservapedia until some SJW spergs missed the irony and took over the asylum.

Conservapedia was funnier when they'd have some giant lengthy rant on some leftard Schlafly was mad at that day but a 100 word article of sentence fragments about, for instance, Ronald Reagan.

 

[TheImportantFart]

Conservapedia was funnier when they'd have some giant lengthy rant on some leftard Schlafly was mad at that day but a 100 word article of sentence fragments about, for instance, Ronald Reagan.

Funny, that same thing happens on RationalWiki now too.

 

[Slap47]

Funny, that same thing happens on RationalWiki now too.

Conservapedia doesn't claim to be impartial like Wikipedia or RationalWiki.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe

He has been criticized for selectively editing videos to misrepresent the context of conversations and the subjects' responses, creating the false impression that people said or did things they did not.[5][6][7][8]

Even though the overwhelming majority (if not all) Project Veritas videos are edited solely for brevity, the camera is apparently lying and the Atlantic, the NPR, and Time are telling the truth.

Notice how the article is just assuming the cherry-picking allegations by these websites are true.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Conservapedia doesn't claim to be impartial like Wikipedia or RationalWiki.

Can RationalWiki really claim to be impartial when it's whole statement on impartiality is "reality has a liberal bias?"

 

[Cato]

Peter Hitchens talks about his wikipedia ban in this interview (I timestamped the relevant part):

 

[Ilikeoreos]

I'm all for freedom of expression, but the way that Wikipedia proudly boasts about refusing to take down pictures of Muhammad sounds about as smart as walking into a room full of Nazis and bragging about being Jewish.

 

[Cato]

I'm all for freedom of expression, but the way that Wikipedia proudly boasts about refusing to take down pictures of Muhammad sounds about as smart as walking into a room full of Nazis and bragging about being Jewish.

That analogy is exceptional. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia containing the sum of all (notable) human knowledge on their own platform, for the consumption of anyone with Internet access. That's a hell of a lot different than specifically singling out a group of people to provoke and piss off on their own turf with something they in particular would find objectionable.

 

[Chiang Kai-shek]

Cross posting from the TDS thread but I think this guy deserves some attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer

He’s dedicated himself to exposing trump for Russian collusion. He also really hates trump supporters or anyone who even vaguely thinks trump is good. Bull has expressed the belief that trump supporters are manipulated idiots and they shouldn’t be allowed to edit trump articles. His reasoning? Fact checkers. Most of not all the sources are by “fact checkers” and about Drumpf lying 1,423 times or something. He even thinks any right wing news source is Russian propaganda.

If he’s guilty of anything, it’s having a huge ego. Another one of his articles that I believe sheds some light on his thought process.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I'm all for freedom of expression, but the way that Wikipedia proudly boasts about refusing to take down pictures of Muhammad sounds about as smart as walking into a room full of Nazis and bragging about being Jewish.

Not really, since all people do is Engrishy sperging on the talk page for Muhammad's article. And Arabic language Wikipedia with a proportionately higher amount of :islamic::islamic::islamic: doesn't have any pictures of Muhammad.

 

[sadstuck]

Found this on the page for the anime Puni Puni Poemy. I haven't watched it at all but this just reeks of being shoehorned in by a troon who read too much into it.

 

[Cato]

The usual Wikipedia-approved political commentary masquerading as encyclopedic content on the entry for Dune:

At least they had the awareness to include that disclaimer, but sadly this didn't translate to removing it from the article. I checked the talk page to see if anyone was arguing against including this, and instead found no such thing, but did find someone taking issue with the conflation of gender and sexuality. Apparently they were offended that the section wasn't PC enough:

 

[Feline Darkmage]

Conservapedia doesn't claim to be impartial like Wikipedia or RationalWiki.

That brings their self-awareness points to like... -1.

Still more than wikipedia edit warriors tbh.