Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[AnOminous]

Do they, though? I'm unfortunately familiar with leftist/chapo jargon and I can't remember seeing that one, even on the communist subreddits that ban people for saying crazy because it's "ableist".

It was heavily used by anti-GG and their control of anything related to that subject is pretty much absolute. So it's not surprising they get to use Wikipedia as their version of Know Your Meme to put in all their dumb memes. It can't really seriously be argued that "sealioning" is remotely encyclopedic.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

It was heavily used by anti-GG and their control of anything related to that subject is pretty much absolute. So it's not surprising they get to use Wikipedia as their version of Know Your Meme to put in all their dumb memes. It can't really seriously be argued that "sealioning" is remotely encyclopedic.

I forgot how important goobergrape was to Wikipedia. Presumably their desire to portray KiwiFarms in the way they do comes from the belief that we supported goobergrape. Not like we have threads on Carl and Milo or anything.

 

[AprilRains]

Wikipedia is not encyclopedic. It's a video game the objective of which is to keep your content in place and delete content you dislike.

 

[byuu]

It was heavily used by anti-GG and their control of anything related to that subject is pretty much absolute.

Wasn't that term pretty much created for people like @GethN7 who dared to ask polite but difficult questions?

 

[betterbullocks]

Mistyped Chris-chan's name.
Was not disappointed.

 

[Burgers in the ass]

Mistyped Chris-chan's name.
Was not disappointed.
View attachment 851398

I didn't know the PS3 was male.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Mistyped Chris-chan's name.
Was not disappointed.
View attachment 851398

Given Chris gets a mention on the Kiwi Farms article, wouldn't that make him effectively notable by their standards? Chris himself is definitely more famous than we are, though I think they have a policy of not making an article on him after he tried to write it.

 

[AnOminous]

Wasn't that term pretty much created for people like @GethN7 who dared to ask polite but difficult questions?

It's not even a named policy. They have the sense to realize an explicit policy that says there's only one acceptable opinion about GG and it's that anyone involved in it is a Nazi and anyone on the other side is a saintly hero would be a total embarrassment.

They just suspend every other rule they have to make sure it stays that way. Some dude's personal blog will get considered a reliable source. Completely non-notable nobodies like John Walker Flynt will have articles. Etc. And it's a perfect example of citogenesis in that some shit ends up in the GG articles, then ends up in "news" stories by the pet outlets of the very same people who put it there, then the "reliable source" gets quoted.

It's amazingly corrupt bullshit and really puts the lie to Wikipedia being any kind of encyclopedia. Sure there's good content that hasn't yet been completely raped but there's basically a roadmap as to how you fake Wikipedia content and I'm sure it's now being done routinely.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

It's not even a named policy. They have the sense to realize an explicit policy that says there's only one acceptable opinion about GG and it's that anyone involved in it is a Nazi and anyone on the other side is a saintly hero would be a total embarrassment.

They just suspend every other rule they have to make sure it stays that way. Some dude's personal blog will get considered a reliable source. Completely non-notable nobodies like John Walker Flynt will have articles. Etc. And it's a perfect example of citogenesis in that some shit ends up in the GG articles, then ends up in "news" stories by the pet outlets of the very same people who put it there, then the "reliable source" gets quoted.

It's amazingly corrupt bullshit and really puts the lie to Wikipedia being any kind of encyclopedia. Sure there's good content that hasn't yet been completely raped but there's basically a roadmap as to how you fake Wikipedia content and I'm sure it's now being done routinely.

Interestingly, the second amendment-related articles have kept some degree of impartiality, since there is apparently a community of editors who prevent the leftists from taking them over. When I opened the second amendment article for the first time, I was expecting an absolute horror show of how DC v Heller was the worst decision since Dred Scott, if not ever, and was decided by confederate flag-waving racists, including the noted white supremacist Clarence Thomas. Instead, the first sentence actually agrees with the Heller ruling and says that the 2A protects the individual right to bear arms. The article as a whole is also a fairly decent introduction to the subject, describing the amendment's origins in English common law and Blackstone's commentaries.

The difference is that while anti-GG types are usually anti-gun, it has too much real-world relevance to be an autistic obsession for them, and, since it's not an utterly exceptional subject like goobergrape that no one who isn't autistic would care about, intelligent people actually edit the articles sometimes.

 

[AnOminous]

Instead, the first sentence actually agrees with the Heller ruling and says that the 2A protects the individual right to bear arms. The article as a whole is also a fairly decent introduction to the subject, describing the amendment's origins in English common law and Blackstone's commentaries.

The legal articles are still relatively good, probably because there's still a population of people who know what rulings actually say and won't put up with too much in the way of utter nonsense. Also, unlike most sets of articles where the dumb "no original research" rule means you literally can't even look at primary sources, they have an understanding that it would be absolutely absurd to say what a case says without even looking at it.

 

[Kaede Did Nothing Wrong]

Wikipedia is not encyclopedic. It's a video game the objective of which is to keep your content in place and delete content you dislike.

lol yeah like an unending game of king of the hill. this is why I think it's worth checking who is actually making edits. these links make an article's edit history and a specific user's activity a thousand times more legible. also just fun to snoop around imo, even if what you find doesn't turn out to be thread worthy.

Spoiler: long and off topic

in that article I previously posted, the one thing that stood out was the pedo mod spends his time editing stuff about murdered children. made me think, I can picture who's editing pony stuff or star wars or whatever... who is editing shit about murdered children? from my very lazy and informal survey, it's more than obvious weirdos. anything with any media mention has true crime fans coming in, or someone who just followed the news closely at the time. some editors focus on topics like their state as a whole, so end up adding most to a killing that falls within the jurisdiction of their autism.

one of the articles I found, Mitrice Richardson, was created and primarily written by a clinical psychologist who the victim once interned for, Dr. Ronda Hampton. the wiki page was created a day after Mitrice was reported missing, along with a few other websites raising awareness of the missing persons case. there's a photo uploaded to wikipedia of the family at site where the body was eventually found a year later. they built a small memorial and look like they had been crying. idk, something about how mundane and real the image is very affecting and sad. Dr. Hampton continued to updated the wiki page for five more years before eventually stopping. the police investigation does reads like it was real fucked. so the wiki article serves as a kind of memorial/remembrance/awareness campaign.

that is the complete opposite of pointless sperging this thread is supposed to be about but I thought it was interesting.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Wikipedia needs a complete overhaul on how its site is run, and soon.

 

[AprilRains]

Wikipedia needs a complete overhaul on how its site is run, and soon.

How would you change it? I agree it's broken, but I have no idea how to fix it.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

How would you change it? I agree it's broken, but I have no idea how to fix it.

I would first change the rules to be less retarded (especially with how the "no original research" rule precludes even the citation of primary sources).

Then I would do major recalls on what is considered an "authoritative" news source on Wikipedia.

Then I would have to kick a lot of the old editors and admins out, for bias, pedophilia, etc.

 

[AprilRains]

I would first change the rules to be less exceptional (especially with how the "no original research" rule precludes even the citation of primary sources).

Then I would do major recalls on what is considered an "authoritative" news source on Wikipedia.

Then I would have to kick a lot of the old editors and admins out, for bias, pedophilia, etc.

I'm not sure how well that would work, but I think it's at least worth trying incrementally. First throw out the rule against no primary sources, and see how it works.

 

[couponbug.com]

I found some inconsistency building up in gamedev Wikipedia pages today. When looking for a list of games made by Game Freak, searching just that would be enough. Perhaps in the future, we'll be searching for their gameography.

Game Freak - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Maybe a more enlightened gamer would want to learn about Intelligent Systems' ludography.

Intelligent Systems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, ludo could be a useful word academically, since it's the Latin word for play. However, everyone else who could be using that term is either a pretentious game blogger, or a shitposter who calls movies kino. I haven't found any discussion about the word on Wikipedia yet, but these differing titles were not hard to find. Eventually, someone who cares too much is probably going to notice, and will try to begin the ludo revolution.

 

[I can't imagine]

Wasn't that term pretty much created for people like @GethN7 who dared to ask polite but difficult questions?

Pretty much. Ostensibly, sealioning is asking a complex question politely, but in bad faith (in other words, you already know the answer you want them to give, but know they won't give it). Which, you know, is actually a pretty decent way of demonstrating a faulty thought process in a person's argument. But it's a lot easier to call them a troll and move on than confront flaws in your own belief system, so....

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

I would first change the rules to be less exceptional (especially with how the "no original research" rule precludes even the citation of primary sources).

Then I would do major recalls on what is considered an "authoritative" news source on Wikipedia.

Then I would have to kick a lot of the old editors and admins out, for bias, pedophilia, etc.

Is there actually a 'no primary source' rule? How does that work? I've had to look at a lot of Wikipedia pages for small towns recently, and a lot of them have the town's website as a citation--is that not supposed to be allowed?

The problem with Wikipedia is that they're so busy with making sure there's no flame wars on controversial pages they can't stop spergs from sperging on topics nobody cares about.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

The only way to fix wikipedia is for everyone to acknowledge it's as much as encyclopedia as encyclopedia dramatica is.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

It seems someone got seriously bent out of shape at sci-fi authors. Specifically, Tom Kratman, Michael Z. Williamson, John Ringo and Sarah Hoyt. There's been a relentless attempt to delete their Wiki pages for 'not being notable' by this sperg. Their reasoning being that none of the references were 'credible'. I guess Baen Books is just a hallucination and veteran status can't be easily verified (hello, DD214).

Now, I grant Kratman is a weirdo (hell, he and Williamson have had threads here), but this is just silly. I gotta admit, though, Mikey Z had the best put down I've ever seen in regards to this bullshit.

The page is gone, and it's a relief. My fans shouldn't have to grovel, degrade, and humiliate themselves before a "consensus" of social failures to document that a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was fucked to death by a horse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case