Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Bad Take Crucifier]

I'd use the black/red antifa logo instead. The actual USSR wasn't quite that dumb.

It's not for the USSR, it's for the modern "communists" who put the hammer and sickle in their twitter name because they think Stalin and Mao did nothing wrong.

Spoiler: specifically shit like this

now that you mention it the i've never heard he insane left wing twitter people ever talk about their stance on government. perhaps they are ancaps and this was all a plot to get what they want.

it's all they talk about. They want free health care from a country 26 trillion in government debt plus free food, free housing, and no police. They're rioting about it in Portland as we speak.

More info here on that one https://kiwifarms.net/threads/u-s-riots-of-may-2020-over-george-floyd-and-others.70231/

 

[StraightShooter2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_wikipedia-related_insults

 

[AnOminous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_wikipedia-related_insults

Doesn't even have "bureaucratic fuck."

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

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

I know I shouldn't be surprised a dumb article like this exists, but it does. To its credit, it does defend Tolkien somewhat by pointing out that he was "anti-racist," but all the same it's still fucking stupid that people are trying to peg Lord of the Rings as racist for nonsensical reasons.

 

[murgatroid]

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

"Racial fetishism is sexually fetishizing a person or culture belonging to a specific race or ethnic group.
...
Latinos
Latinos being categorized as a separate section or category within the pornography industry is not an example of racial fetishism. It is an example of categorizing by appearance, Or in this case, Race. The website Pornhub provides a service where emojis are associated with specific categories of pornography, and the taco emoji was tied to Latina pornography. The taco was meant to signify a vagina since the Taco emoji is usually used to signify a vagina, and the correlation of food insinuates “eating out” in reference to female oral sex."

I don't give a shit about this topic but I noticed someone slipped in this dumb defense of pornhub using tacos to symbolize latino porn.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

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

"Racial fetishism is sexually fetishizing a person or culture belonging to a specific race or ethnic group.
...
Latinos
Latinos being categorized as a separate section or category within the pornography industry is not an example of racial fetishism. It is an example of categorizing by appearance, Or in this case, Race. The website Pornhub provides a service where emojis are associated with specific categories of pornography, and the taco emoji was tied to Latina pornography. The taco was meant to signify a vagina since the Taco emoji is usually used to signify a vagina, and the correlation of food insinuates “eating out” in reference to female oral sex."

Someone slipped in this dumb defense of pornhub using tacos to symbolize latino porn.

>Not racial fetishism
>Just classifying by race

what

 

[Lucille Bluth]

As I understand it, it's against Wikipedia rules to demand an editor's credentials. They treat that as a doxing attempt. This is how you wind up with debacles like that of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, who was almost put on ArbCom despite having faked his background as a religious scholar. He was actually a 24-year-old community college dropout whose alleged expertise had been questioned for years by actual experts, whose voices were systematically silenced by Jordan and his clique.

When you let any idiot masquerade as an expert, that's exactly who will do so.

Worse, they actively drive out experts. Wikipedia hates and detests experts. It is the "encyclopedia" of the participation trophy and the very existence of actual experts is anathema to the aggressively stupid morons who run it.

I just saw the Scotland Wiki drama. WOW.

These were the same users that rejected Neil deGrasse Tyson edit's for his own Wikipedia page to fix an error about his religious beliefs, because "he didn't provide the proper sources", so he had to "confirm them" in an interview and claim that as a "source" IIRC.

All of this further proves that Wikipedia's user base and website as a whole is a joke and always will be. They're expecting people to "donate" to help keep trash running? When their pages are filled with bias (but they'll lie and say some bullshit about being "neutral"), edit wars and a user base is too lazy to clean up all the unnecessary shit on the site.

 

[AnOminous]

This was the same site that rejected Neil deGrasse Tyson edit's for his own Wikipedia page to fix an error about his religious beliefs, because "he didn't provide the proper sources", so he had to "confirm them" in an interview and claim that as a "source" IIRC.

They did this to Philip Roth too about one of his own novels, and he had to write an article calling them a bunch of fucking idiots in The New Yorker before they'd correct it.

An Open Letter to Wikipedia

I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my work. The entry contains a serious misstatement that I…

www.newyorker.com

 

[Lucille Bluth]

They did this to Philip Roth too about one of his own novels, and he had to write an article calling them a bunch of fucking idiots in The New Yorker before they'd correct it.

An Open Letter to Wikipedia

I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my work. The entry contains a serious misstatement that I…

www.newyorker.com

I think I remembered hearing about this. I'll admit, some Wikipedia articles are well sourced and for the most part unbiased, but the negatives outweigh the positives by a landslide.

Funny how a citation/source obsessed site refuses to use the very words that come straight from the horses mouth.

 

[Shaka Brah]

They did this to Philip Roth too about one of his own novels, and he had to write an article calling them a bunch of fucking idiots in The New Yorker before they'd correct it.

An Open Letter to Wikipedia

I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my work. The entry contains a serious misstatement that I…

www.newyorker.com

This article is incredibly ironic today. It's telling that they misinterpret a book about the very kind of thing that has become known as cancel culture today.

 

[AnOminous]

I think I remembered hearing about this. I'll admit, some Wikipedia articles are well sourced and for the most part unbiased, but the negatives outweigh the positives by a landslide.

Funny how a citation/source obsessed site refuses to use the very words that come straight from the horses mouth.

That's called a "primary source" and "original research." They only cite secondary sources. However, despite their insistence that their rules aree just guidelines and if you call them on utterly bullshit uneven enforcement of their fake rules, they accuse you of rules-lawyering and ban you, they utterly insist on these very same rules whenever they get a chance to bully an actual expert or someone who unquestionably knows something.

 

[Shaka Brah]

That's called a "primary source" and "original research." They only cite secondary sources. However, despite their insistence that their rules aree just guidelines and if you call them on utterly bullshit uneven enforcement of their fake rules, they accuse you of rules-lawyering and ban you, they utterly insist on these very same rules whenever they get a chance to bully an actual expert or someone who unquestionably knows something.

They also don't check secondary sources because they're lazy, so you can misquote books or whatever and nobody will do anything about it.

 

[AprilRains]

They also don't check secondary sources because they're lazy, so you can misquote books or whatever and nobody will do anything about it.

They might check the text at a link, but find a physical book? You can claim anything you like there.

 

[The Grimace]

more like wikipedo amirite

 

[Basil II]

View attachment 1596207more like wikipedo amirite

>twitter is not a source
says the shithole where half of their sources cite twitter.

 

[Slimy Time]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank's_sign
https://archive.md/3GaWQ
Still up there since this afternoon. Whoever put that up seems to have dodged the mods for now.

 

[Big Brown Schlub]

>twitter is not a source
says the shithole where half of their sources cite twitter.

Hey man, if Salon publishes an article which hinges on the quote of some twitter user whose handle is analbag69420, then it suddenly turns into a source.

 

[AnOminous]

>twitter is not a source
says the shithole where half of their sources cite twitter.

Their sources policy is even more bogus when the editors pushing a particular agenda are often figuratively or literally in bed with the so-called secondary sources that then cite tweets as proof of shit in their bullshit Medium articles or Guardian blogs that anyone can get. E.g. any of their "encyclopedic" articles about goobergrape or Zoe Quinn or John Walker Flynt.

Hey man, if Salon publishes an article which hinges on the quote of some twitter user whose handle is analbag69420, then it suddenly turns into a source.

And sadly this is quite literally true.

 

[Big Brown Schlub]

And sadly this is quite literally true.

I know, I wish I was just taking the piss and embellishing things with hyperbole, but that's what happens when you live in interesting times.

 

[Lucille Bluth]

That's called a "primary source" and "original research." They only cite secondary sources. However, despite their insistence that their rules aree just guidelines and if you call them on utterly bullshit uneven enforcement of their fake rules, they accuse you of rules-lawyering and ban you, they utterly insist on these very same rules whenever they get a chance to bully an actual expert or someone who unquestionably knows something.

The whole source thing is bullshit. Those Wiki users just pick and choose whenever using certain sources (ie - official social media accounts) are "acceptable" or not.

I remembered users providing info through links from certain notable people's official social media accounts, and they were always reverted, citing that "social media isn't a reliable source". But then certain pages do a whole 180 and have certain lines citing Twitter or Instagram posts for info and no one ever reverts those edits. And other times, a user would cite a certain website (ie - an entertainment website) and their edits would be reverted for not using "trustworthy sources", even though these pages in question are filled with references to those same types of websites.