Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Maricón de Mierda]

Someone mentioned Chris Cunningam a few days ago and I had to google him to remind myself who they were talking about.

As of this moment, Cara Cunningham's (formerly Chris Crocker; born December 7, 1987) Wikipedia page currently has 84 References. That is one less than Dante's Divine Comedy, which lists 85 citations.

Chris Crocker's Wikipedia page has a section on his porn career that contains 432 words. I will say it was informative. I never knew the "Leave Britney Alone!" guy did gay porn. Or is it straight porn now?

Cara Cunningham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Divine Comedy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hồ Chí Minh]

I was once involved tangentially with a fairly big ArbCom war about something (not mentioned by name in any proceedings) and the ultimate resolution, which I found retarded, was just banning the biggest autists on both sides and letting things continue on as they had been. As retarded as this was, it was certainly better than the current model, which is just pick the dumbest side and then ban everyone on the other side, which generally means SJWs get to push delusional bullshit completely unchecked by reality.

To be fair, there are people pushing all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. The example I mentioned earlier was for a European right-wing politician. The general problem is that you basically need to set fire to an article to get banned on Wikipedia, and by then you've already driven 20 (potential) editors away.

As of this moment, Cara Cunningham's (formerly Chris Crocker; born December 7, 1987) Wikipedia page currently has 84 References. That is one less than Dante's Divine Comedy, which lists 85 citations.

Chris Crocker's Wikipedia page has a section on his porn career that contains 432 words. I will say it was informative. I never knew the "Leave Britney Alone!" guy did gay porn. Or is it straight porn now?

Cara Cunningham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Divine Comedy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

90 per cent of Wikipedia usage is for gossip on "celebrities", looking up stuff about your favourite band, checking when the next season of your favourite show will be aired, and similar highly important educational material.

Aside from a few battleground topics (anything remotely to do with Israel or Palestine, gender issues) this is where is majority of idiotic fights are spent too.

 

[cummytummies]

As of this moment, Cara Cunningham's (formerly Chris Crocker; born December 7, 1987) Wikipedia page currently has 84 References. That is one less than Dante's Divine Comedy, which lists 85 citations.

While that is horrible and certainly telling about the state of Wikipedia, if you click on the history tab you'll see the line "Born: Christopher Darren Cunningham", not Cara or Crocker. It was just deemed unimportant after he trooned out. I've never before seen someone's birth name get censored out of an encyclopedia just because they choose a new stage name, but apparently there's a special rule for trannies now. There are entire paragraphs on people changing their names, as long as they aren't troons. See for example the wiki article on Bill de Blasio. I'm waiting for the day the visibility of past edits gets removed from Wikipedia as a hate speech tool.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Big lie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They actually went ahead and called Trump questioning the election the equivalent of the Stab in the Back, presumably because journos started saying that. Wonder how they'd react if someone added Russia collusion to that article?

Without looking at the edit history, I wonder how much of that was guerrillawarfare our favorite editor.

Editors like her are fascinating to me. Many of them appear to have no actual jobs except for editing Wikipedia. There have been several of these over the years, and the speculation for a long time was that they were sock puppets for a group of editors. But some of them like her I would not be surprised if they were being paid by some political actors.

 

[Corpun]

Without looking at the edit history, I wonder how much of that was guerrillawarfare our favorite editor.

Editors like her are fascinating to me. Many of them appear to have no actual jobs except for editing Wikipedia. There have been several of these over the years, and the speculation for a long time was that they were sock puppets for a group of editors. But some of them like her I would not be surprised if they were being paid by some political actors.

Not involved in the article, at least far back as April. She loves making articles about Feds LARPing as wignats and random bullshit relating to them.

 

[AnOminous]

Not involved in the article, at least far back as April. She loves making articles about Feds LARPing as wignats and random bullshit relating to them.

She's also an open partisan, and Wikipedos used to pretend that their fake encyclopedia wasn't just a propaganda outlet.

 

[Shmuel "Sam" Coinsniffer]

I hesitated a bit before making this post, but thinking it over, I trust Kiwifarms don't have too many libertarians so I can post this without shitting the thread up with politisperging. Like I mentioned, talk pages are a gold mine of drama and while ago, did I hit the mother lode. I discovered there's a community of libertarians/Dinesh D'Souza/Jonah Goldberg fans who on the talk pages of protected articles related to Nazism and Fascism try to convince the admins to change the page to reflect that Hitler/Mussolini was actually liberal leftist just like SJWs. And this isn't just a handful of people, there's a dedicated community, I have seen like hundreds of cases probably. This is a low intensity civil war fought on every Nazism related article. Just to give you a taste:

The talk page of article "Nazism" has 30 pages consisting of this:

"Fascism" is even worse with 53 fucking pages of:

There's even a bit of a lolcow crossover, Atomwaffen Division page is also a battle ground due to its popularity:

I guess you have to be a bit of a 'tist to find this funny but it definitely is dumb shit on Wikipedia.

 

[NerdShamer]

I hesitated a bit before making this post, but thinking it over, I trust Kiwifarms don't have too many libertarians so I can post this without shitting the thread up with politisperging. Like I mentioned, talk pages are a gold mine of drama and while ago, did I hit the mother lode. I discovered there's a community of libertarians/Dinesh D'Souza/Jonah Goldberg fans who on the talk pages of protected articles related to Nazism and Fascism try to convince the admins to change the page to reflect that Hitler/Mussolini was actually liberal leftist just like SJWs. And this isn't just a handful of people, there's a dedicated community, I have seen like hundreds of cases probably. This is a low intensity civil war fought on every Nazism related article. Just to give you a taste:

The talk page of article "Nazism" has 30 pages consisting of this:

View attachment 2490496

"Fascism" is even worse with 53 fucking pages of:

View attachment 2490512

View attachment 2490517

View attachment 2490521

There's even a bit of a lolcow crossover, Atomwaffen Division page is also a battle ground due to its popularity:

View attachment 2490481

I guess you have to be a bit of a 'tist to find this funny but it definitely is dumb shit on Wikipedia.

I'm not a diehard politisperg, but the Germans have provided: Essentially free healthcare for expectant mothers, guaranteed jobs, and a theoretically stable economy for the period by directly seizing control of businesses; which is more or less along the lines of socialism. And the only that they asked for is to turn on your foulborn neighbors... And that these benefits only really applied to the obvious subjects.

I won't be surprised if communism is getting the same treatment.

 

[Screw Danlon]

I know I’ve bitched it before, but I saw it again, so here we are. It genuinely makes me MatI more than almost anything else that Wikipedia does this begging shit, considering how much of its work is done for free and how much of it is “secretly” either ideological or marketing driven.

Not to mention that they still try to conflate their non-profit status to mean “barely solvent”, which is ridiculous considering how much money they pull in through grants and stuff.

I find NPR begging annoying, too, but at least they have significant production costs and most of their work isn’t done by volunteers:

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

View attachment 2494400
I know I’ve bitched it before, but I saw it again, so here we are. It genuinely makes me MatI more than almost anything else that Wikipedia does this begging shit, considering how much of its work is done for free and how much of it is “secretly” either ideological or marketing driven.

Not to mention that they still try to conflate their non-profit status to mean “barely solvent”, which is ridiculous considering how much money they pull in through grants and stuff.

I'd donate to Wikipedia if they were more transparent and made steps to clean up their site from the bizarre and impenetrable bureaucracy, some of which is paid by the Wikimedia Foundation and some of which is for-free ascended jannies.

I find NPR begging annoying, too, but at least they have significant production costs and most of their work isn’t done by volunteers:

NPR begging is because Congress won't fully fund them and trying to put in a telly license like the BBC is political suicide in this country, even today.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not a diehard politisperg, but the Germans have provided: Essentially free healthcare for expectant mothers, guaranteed jobs, and a theoretically stable economy for the period by directly seizing control of businesses; which is more or less along the lines of socialism. And the only that they asked for is to turn on your foulborn neighbors... And that these benefits only really applied to the obvious subjects.

I won't be surprised if communism is getting the same treatment.

If anything, the Weimar Republic did more actual seizing of private businesses, while the Nazis generally returned companies to private ownership. Rather than having a direct command economy as Communists did, they generally had more of a policy of just making what were something more than "suggestions" as to what companies should do, but then paying for them. The efficiencies of this approach allowed them to fund most of their war activities. Had they not seriously fucked up on the Eastern Front, they would have been a lot more difficult to defeat and might even have managed a conclusion to the war that allowed them to keep at least some of what they'd conquered.

This is my personal opinion and a lot of what happened is obscured by "fog of war" shit. I still think the basic state structure of Nazi Germany was at least partially inspired by a respect for capitalism and the pretense of socialism was mostly just to bring a certain kind of hoodlum into the group who could be used (to gain power) and then disposed of (when these degenerates inevitably started alienating the wealthy elements who supported Hitler).

Hitler is sort of viewed as some kind of stereotypical dictator but in actuality he had to work with a lot of diverse interests to retain power, and the ones he ultimately chose were those with capital, not the socialist hoodlums of the Brown Shirts, the so-called "beefsteak Nazis," i.e. brown on the outside, red on the inside. Most of these policies were also business-oriented, and more in the nature of Western welfare states (funded by capitalism) than USSR-style command economy.

 

[Bec]

This whole article feels like a massive cope.

Ottoman Decline Thesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Like the ottomans weren't completely stagnant but they obviously were losing ground and influence.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

The Ottoman Decline Thesis or Ottoman Decline Paradigm (Turkish: Osmanlı Gerileme Tezi) is an obsolete[1] historical narrative which once played a dominant role in the study of the history of the Ottoman Empire.

Looking at that 'obsolete' reference one of the 'sources' is this: "In the scholarly literature produced by Ottomanists since the mid-1970s, the hitherto prevailing view of Ottoman decline has been effectively debunked", oh the Ottomanists, which is usually a term used by hagiographers of the Ottoman Empire, declare it debunked, so therefore it is. I mean it's pretty simple - they weren't able to do any conquering of Christian nations anymore after their (glorious) defeat at Lepanto. After that it was a slow bleed of size of the Empire itself, along with dynastic instability.

Further on in the article:

Having dispensed with the notion of decline,

The proceeding paragraphs did no such thing. Verdict: massive cope.

I mentioned this on here before, but I have seen left-liberal historians attempt to justify or even glamorize Ottoman slavery as well.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

From the article for Star Wars Holiday Special

Star Wars Holiday Special - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikiheads can't help themselves...43 year old TV special? Can we shoehorn in a Trump burn somewhere?

 

[BiggerChungus]

"GorillaWarfare" does nothing but haunt various supposed right-wing personalities/websites (despite the relative intellectual diversity here, this includes KF) article pages. No apparent expertise in any of it, he/she/it just plagiarizes news stories about whatever the outage of the moment is for shitlibs.

I've heard of GorillaWarfare before. Fairly convinced it's a trans dude larping as a reel waman with fake pictures. One of the "Did you know" articles currently featured is some bullshit about how Youtube D&D games "improved representation" by having black dudes and women in them, because SJWs really like to pretend black people and women never played tabletop games ever except in the last few years. Turns out it's by the very same "Molly" and most if not every article he's ever made or invested in has something to do with far-left topics, and always in a favorable light. Haven't done too much digging, but it also looks like a lot of his/her/its/whatever's administrative actions are against non-leftwing edits.

It's hard to find a better example of the biased circlejerk Wikipedia's administration's become, and has been for the past 16-odd years if you really look back. All that's changed is white guys are no longer evil because Bush is literally Hitler, and instead it's white guys are evil because Trump's literally Hitler plus other identity-political word salad.

I know I’ve bitched it before, but I saw it again, so here we are. It genuinely makes me MatI more than almost anything else that Wikipedia does this begging shit, considering how much of its work is done for free and how much of it is “secretly” either ideological or marketing driven.

Go woke, go broke. I feel bad for the few editors left who make interesting historical articles and just wanna be informative rather than spread a shitty political message, but the site's not getting a red cent from me until it actually starts enforcing neutrality and stops acting like janny Pravda.

I know it’s projection, but hasn’t Wikipedia already been exposed for only making pages like these if they just tow left-wing (or hardcore left-wing) politics? How many people will visit KF’s page on Wiki and actually care about this site because of it?

Because they hide it behind the excuse of "reliable sources", which used to be legit but has long since become "whatever the admins like." Same as the shitheads who say that reality has a liberal bias. They dress up their obvious and overwhelming partiality as unbiased because "it's not our fault that the only reliable sources are left-wing bro we're totally neutral!" Enough people have bought the bullshit and the many that haven't long since ditched the site, so the only people left either want it that way or would be shut down and banned for calling it out.

 

[Corpun]

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-on-wikipedia.99854/

Article posted on A&N about new Wikisperg. Some boomer bitch from Commie Russia who religiously edits German articles from WW2.

User:K.e.coffman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take a look at that list of hers.

User talk:K.e.coffman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Talk pages she's in are all pretty much boiling down to X isn't a reliable source, especially when it comes down to Soviet Warcrimes.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

@BiggerChungus (cant quote you because JEWsh hasn't fixed it yet).

A couple of us were looking into the possibility that GorillaWarfare in a tranny, but couldn't really find any evidence of it. But I had not considered the 'fake pic' angle, something I didn't know troons did until a few months ago. But she does have several of the common tranny traits, ie a programmer (or claims to be), constantly online, etc.

We also think it was her that posted under '@GorrillaWarfare' (based on the same interests, obsessively wiki editing, and most especially the tone of the posts) including this vaguely threatening post:

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/perhaps-the-most-retarded-idea-ive-ever-had.84199/page-122#post-9583971

"It's not too late Josh, you can live a normal life, all you have to do is delete KF"

Wikipedia is not research. It's google searching disguised as research, to the detriment of real encyclopedic knowledge.

 

[JJLiautaud]

@BootlegPopeye
Its like all decline historiography when youre really deep in the weeds of sources you dont really ever see the decline until the sources stop. I've had this problem with the Roman Empire, for a school paper I was writing, its very difficult to pinpoint the exact moment of decline. However, yeah, the Ottoman Decline thesis is pure cope by turkroaches and their enablers.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-on-wikipedia.99854/

Article posted on A&N about new Wikisperg. Some boomer bitch from Commie Russia who religiously edits German articles from WW2.

User:K.e.coffman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take a look at that list of hers.

User talk:K.e.coffman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Talk pages she's in are all pretty much boiling down to X isn't a reliable source, especially when it comes down to Soviet Warcrimes.

I spent a little time and went through that thread and some of the relevant talk pages. The user 'Peacemaker67' is exactly the kind of editor Wikipedia on its best day should want - it's obvious he isn't a Nazi apologist (he is ex Australian Military) and is just an obsessive chronicler of all things military going back to the Romans. All coffman is doing there is deleting things she doesnt like and sniping at good users like peacemaker. If Wikipedia was a sane place (spoiler: it isn't), they would ban people like her the first time she blanked half of a biography because she thought it was too favorable toward a subject.

 

[Gingervitis]

@BootlegPopeye
Its like all decline historiography when youre really deep in the weeds of sources you dont really ever see the decline until the sources stop Ive had this problem with the roman empire for a school paper I was writing its very difficult to pinpoint the exact moment of decline, however yeah the Ottoman Decline thesis is pure cope by turkroaches and their enablers.

Nigger use a period