- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
Plus the long struggle to mark the links to the "crucifixions in anime" article as nonsense.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
Dumbfounded this article is still up.
NerdShamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
You know that it wasn't written by Americans by the time you get to the gun culture.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
You could replace that entire article with this video and it would be more informative.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
Wikipedia relies on the hearsay of experts, and by experts I mean the likes of MovieBob.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
So is that enough of an admission of fakery that it will get deleted?
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
Yeah but then you get power jannies screeching about how x topic like German winners of the Iron Cross with Oak leaves isnt encyclopedic content and deleting them and thats just on the face of it retarded, my opinion is if something is written in an encyclopedic tone and sourced then it should be included and the first steps before even considering deletion is to see if it can be rewritten.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
She would make a great lolcow
she deserved the ire and attacks she got from lolcow bill Palmer the Palmer report
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Some of the information removed is just bizarre. Like here our censorious cat lady blanks half the article on this random Kriegsmarine admiral. Apparently Wikipedia policy makes any and all generals/admirals of major countries like Germany notable, but apparently not notable enough that his page needs information like his place of birth/death or ships he served on. The other excuse censorious cat lady uses is "sources cited fail the reliable sources policy" which is abject nonsense.
Like this whole debate is because articles were citing Franz Kurowski's books or similar sources which exaggerate the achievements and deeds of the Wehrmacht/SS, but Wikipedia itself quotes a historian saying of Kurowski that "much of the data is correct: names, places, ships sunk and medals won." It's just pure nonsense from the perspective of how history works and it's obvious that woman has no training or interest in the field, merely an interest in using Wikipedia's bloated bureaucracy to advance her political agenda.
NerdShamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
That is weird that they omitted his exact grade of admiral and most of his medals, where most of the other articles occasionally have a table of medals that so-and-so earned and their promotion history.
So, what's the motive here, aside from the "Nazis are bad!" angle?
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
From what I could tell from going through some of the relevant discussion, it's that under the guise of 'muh reliable sources'. Political activism in the guise of some kind of source absolutist.
She doesn't consider any author remotely not anti-nazi enough to be 'reliable'. She doesn't seem that knowledgeable about military matters either. The blanking of major general officers articles is pretty unforgivable; I'd argue that if they hit that rank that alone makes them notable. Hopefully, that puff piece article will give her enough publicity to the people who maybe ignored her and will see what a menace people like her are to any encyclopedia.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
I know we have already talked to death about horrendous profile pictures used in Wikipedia, but I think this one takes the cake.
en.wikipedia.org
It's a photograph taken from a video at an oblique angle.
Faith Spotted Eagle - Wikipedia
It's a photograph taken from a video at an oblique angle.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
Why don't they just screenshot the video with printscreen or whatever? All you have to do then is to just crop the image (perhaps) and you have that as a profile pic.I know we have already talked to death about horrendous profile pictures used in Wikipedia, but I think this one takes the cake.
Faith Spotted Eagle - Wikipedia
View attachment 2538993
It's a photograph taken from a video at an oblique angle.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Lists like that almost always have reliable sources. I think utter garbage should be deleted, though, like articles on John Walker Flynt. People are not notable for just chopping their dicks off, especially when there isn't even a source to confirm that such a person as "Brianna Wu" even exists at all.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2021
If we don't need literal who German Tank Aces do we really need literal who Injuns heya hoying over a pipeline? Then again that ancient bitch no one ever heard of who shilled for Juneteenth to be a federal holiday got one the day Biden made it one.I know we have already talked to death about horrendous profile pictures used in Wikipedia, but I think this one takes the cake.
Faith Spotted Eagle - Wikipedia
View attachment 2538993
It's a photograph taken from a video at an oblique angle.
Vaccine hesitancy - Wikipedia
COVID-19 misinformation - Wikipedia
Feel free to peruse these, I'm honestly too tired to look for particular bouts of autism but they are certainly there.
List of controversial elections - Wikipedia
Curious how every election in this list has either a small blurb or no blurb at all until you get to the 2016 Election and 2020 Election in the US, then you have wikispergs going all out.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
Probably couldn't get photo rights from whoever took the photo so the author believed an autistic loophole was to take a photo of the original photo.I know we have already talked to death about horrendous profile pictures used in Wikipedia, but I think this one takes the cake.
Faith Spotted Eagle - Wikipedia
View attachment 2538993
It's a photograph taken from a video at an oblique angle.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
"Source absolutism" is how activists get to vandalize Wikipedia, since most far-left sources are deemed acceptable (except for literal communist websites like the World Socialist Website since they hate the establishment/globalist left) while anything right of center like Daily Mail is banned.
That cat lady has done a lot of damage, but appears to be kept in check by policies that are permitting articles on most Nazi generals/admirals to remain, even if they aren't allowed to have any information. I can't find a single instance where any article on an obscure 1-star general has been deleted, aside from those on people who the sources aren't sure were actually promoted or not (which might be because IIRC Germany in both world wars never did acting officers like the US or Britain did). The articles that really suffer are those on random U-Boat captains, tank commanders, and fighter aces.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
It's from a video of a video presentation in an auditorium, so I assume the person who took the photo didn't have access to the original video.
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
There is another way they do it; the ridiculous standard of 'Google hits' as the yard stick of notability, which is why Wikipedia has entries for idiotic, forgotten memes from 2012, long dead blogs from the Bush years, hair on fire TDS stories, among many others - while neglectful of historical events and figures that don't interest Wiki nerds as much (they call this 'wiki groaning' and guess what Wikipedos, it's a legit complaint about your pseudo encyclopedia).
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Don't forget the long-dead forced "memes" that were painfully forced by a couple of leftoids nobody ever heard of.
Milkshake Duck - Wikipedia
Sealioning - Wikipedia
These memes are clearly extremely notable and need a lengthy article.