Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Darwin Watterson said:
You’ve probably heard about that documentary that Corey Feldman is releasing that promises to expose the people who used both him and Corey Haim as sex toys when they were kids. You know, the one that’s been covered by all sorts of “reliable sources?” The one that Corey Feldman’s Wikipedia page makes NO MENTION of whatsoever in spite of the huge amounts of mainstream coverage it’s been getting?

They’re usually pretty on top of things, and last I checked, Feldman’s page was last modified seven hours ago as of this post. That tells me that, rather than people just being too lazy to update it, Wikipedia is actively trying to keep it off. Why? It’s definitely a notable aspect of Corey’s life and career, and has been covered by more than enough of the precious “secondary sources” they cream their pants over.
Click to expand...
I could understand wanting to avoid plausible but uncerifiable things, but he's claiming it. It's relevant (altho this phone post might be in reply to an old post). Hollyweird was, and is, a bad place.
 
CivilianOfTheFandomWars said:
This is as if an alien was trying to explain the concept of memes and shitposting.
Click to expand...

This is because of the moronic secondary ("reliable") source policy. The media can't understand any of this shit and literally everything said by a mainstream media outlet about online culture is absolutely stupid beyond belief and completely wrong, at best. More often, it's so completely off base it isn't even wrong.

If the material they have to work with is this bad, they shouldn't even have an article on it because it can't be "encyclopedic."
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Elim Garak, Coleman Francis, BR55 and 12 others
AnOminous said:
This is because of the moronic secondary ("reliable") source policy. The media can't understand any of this shit and literally everything said by a mainstream media outlet about online culture is absolutely stupid beyond belief and completely wrong, at best. More often, it's so completely off base it isn't even wrong.

If the material they have to work with is this bad, they shouldn't even have an article on it because it can't be "encyclopedic."
Click to expand...
True, though I would argue that shitposts are a large enough part of culture to warrant an article. Just one that’s actually good.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Mexican_Wizard_711, From The Uncanny Valley and 1 other person
CivilianOfTheFandomWars said:
How would you find a source on comedy? It's like trying to describe what is and isn't art, you go in circles.
Click to expand...

Comedy has been discussed by playwrights and philosophers for literally thousands of years. You can go all the way back to Plato and further, just from Western sources. Anything on Western comedy is going to start with the Greeks and then go up to modern time. There are thousands of years of sources and criticism and commentary.

Shitposting is an entirely different concept that the garbage media sources cited in the article clearly don't understand in the least. Even academic sources are either nearly worthless, or are low-prestige like master's or Ph.D. theses by people who are members of various Internet subcultures and not really authoritative.

News media opinions by people who know nothing are neither encyclopedic, useful, nor anything but pure opinion. The value of secondary so-called "reliable sources" is supposedly that they're independent examinations of primary sources that distill or otherwise characterize them in ways that can be used as encyclopedic sources. That completely doesn't apply. There's no "expertise" on this subject that gives anyone's opinion any greater weight than anyone else.

A random shitpost from a shitposter saying nonsense for his own amusement would be just as valid a source as any media opinion on the subject.

AprilRains said:
That's why real encyclopedias try to avoid those subjects.
Click to expand...

The article on comedy in the 1968 EB is about 4 columns or 2 pages.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, nohull, Silence of the Troons and 7 others
Presented without comment:
jannie1.png
jannie2.png

jannie3.png
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: All-in-one Soap, Blatant hypocrite, Ihascat and 38 others
Nipplegate: 191 references.

I don't know if I can add anything substantive to this post.

I remember this event clearly, for one reason: it was one of the first events that cemented my distrust of mass media (the next, funny enough, was one of the Michael Jackson hearings). It felt too staged. Too concocted. Why was she wearing the fancy uncomfortable jewelry if she wasn't expecting her titty to be seen by all of America? Why did the chest piece come apart like that? Why wasn't that Brittany up there on stage with Justin instead? Why were we all supposed to be talking about it? Even as a teenager, I was wary of this thing. It felt memetic and forced and gay.

On a tangent: the Michael Jackson thing was a couple years later. I had a job that required me to watch the news. I recall one day CNN had cameras fixed on the front of a courthouse, literally all day, waiting for Michael to possibly exit the courthouse. This is so that he could briefly be seen by the cameras while refusing to answer questions for anyone.

Meanwhile, on the little ticker below, completely ignored by all the talking heads arguing in the background off-camera, a few thousand had gone missing and possibly died in an earthquake. Clearly, the proscribed narrative had to take priority.
:shit-eating:
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage and From The Uncanny Valley
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back