Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Lucille Bluth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right, and it's even worse than that.

What matters is not what the source is, but who is doing the edit and how it fits the narrative. No source is good enough if they don't like you or they don't like the point they think you're making. Facts? What are those?

They even have an escape clause for pointing out their fucking ridiculous internal inconsistency. It's called WP [colon] OTHERSTUFF, and it means you cannot induce any pattern from existing pages. Unless you're one of the in crowd or you're making the right kind of point. Then it's okay.

In fact, almost every policy on Wikipedia has an equal and opposite policy. Therefore, anything can be justified. And anything is.

If I could contribute money to something that took away money from Wikipedia, I would do that.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Elim Garak, albert chan, Syaoran Li and 10 others
AprilRains said:
Absolutely right, and it's even worse than that.

What matters is not what the source is, but who is doing the edit and how it fits the narrative. No source is good enough if they don't like you or they don't like the point they think you're making. Facts? What are those?

They even have an escape clause for pointing out their fucking ridiculous internal inconsistency. It's called WP [colon] OTHERSTUFF, and it means you cannot induce any pattern from existing pages. Unless you're one of the in crowd or you're making the right kind of point. Then it's okay.

In fact, almost every policy on Wikipedia has an equal and opposite policy. Therefore, anything can be justified. And anything is.

If I could contribute money to something that took away money from Wikipedia, I would do that.
Click to expand...
Donate to Britannica
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: albertbrown26, Mexican_Wizard_711, UnsufficentBoobage and 2 others
Lucille Bluth said:
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.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. I remmber I went on the Wikipedia page for comdiean Chonda Pierce and under politics. They use her Twitter as a source to show she is a Trump supporter. So yes they do use Twitter as a source. so really their bunch of Hypocrites. Who are defended a movie that sexulizes kids.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Elim Garak, Mexican_Wizard_711, Toolbox and 3 others
AprilRains said:
Absolutely right, and it's even worse than that.

What matters is not what the source is, but who is doing the edit and how it fits the narrative. No source is good enough if they don't like you or they don't like the point they think you're making. Facts? What are those?

They even have an escape clause for pointing out their fucking ridiculous internal inconsistency. It's called WP [colon] OTHERSTUFF, and it means you cannot induce any pattern from existing pages. Unless you're one of the in crowd or you're making the right kind of point. Then it's okay.

In fact, almost every policy on Wikipedia has an equal and opposite policy. Therefore, anything can be justified. And anything is.

If I could contribute money to something that took away money from Wikipedia, I would do that.
Click to expand...
All those weird loopholes, inconsistency and "clauses" on every policy they have is nuts.

I remembered reading a page that cited an article by a man named "Steve Sailer". I thought the article cited seemed "off" and used words/terminology that didn't seem like anything your typical "liberal" or "mainstream American media" would use.

And low and behold, his Wikipedia page basically describes him as being an alt-right, white supremacist who also promotes anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial and other conspiracies. Edit: Obviously, he has a fixation/obsession with "race" and other "race related" things. I couldn't believe that the supposedly "liberal/neutral" Wikipedia was using one of this dudes articles as "sources".

Have you guys seen the retarded user pages that some Wiki users have?

Decked out all those stupid banners that always mention things like their gender identity and other bullshit/useless facts?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, AprilRains, UnsufficentBoobage and 1 other person
More VPN fun:
412.png
 
  • Islamic Content
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, Nguyen Van Phuoc, albert chan and 5 others
ToroidalBoat said:
The COVID-19 article seems to be dismissing any criticism of the official narrative of COVID-19 as "conspiracy theories". And of course the article brings up identity politics because it's 2020.
Click to expand...
It's been utter shit since February when they the intro to the article devoted an entire paragraph about "racism and xenophobia against the Chinese" and how there's all sorts of misinformation all while parroting the WHO's statements that China was doing a great job. There is also an article about Wikipedia's Chinese virus article which is self-congratulatory in tone.

I can't imagine how bad it is now.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, albert chan, UnsufficentBoobage and 5 others
Save the Loli said:
It's been utter shit since February when they the intro to the article devoted an entire paragraph about "racism and xenophobia against the Chinese" and how there's all sorts of misinformation all while parroting the WHO's statements that China was doing a great job. There is also an article about Wikipedia's Chinese virus article which is self-congratulatory in tone.

I can't imagine how bad it is now.
Click to expand...

FUCK CHINKS FUCK BAT-EATING CHINK MOTHERFUCKERS DEATH TO ALL CHINKS.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Elim Garak, Loona, Fictional Character and 2 others
ATaxingWoman said:
You'd think someone who's trying to select a good image to use on a Wikipedia page would use a picture where you can actually see the person properly, right? Well, on Sergei Bodrov Jr.'s French wiki page, they went with this photo https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergueï_Sergueïevitch_Bodrov
View attachment 1623532
Click to expand...
If the French Wikipedia goes by French copyright law it might be the only image they could use. It can be hard to use photos for which you don't hold the copyright in France, especially for anybody involved in art of some kind. I'd leave it out myself but I get the feeling the other language wikis are even more autistic than the English one.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Nguyen Van Phuoc, Large and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back