Skitzocow Mark Bernstein - Ryulong 2.0, Creepy Paranoid Stalker and Anti-Gamergate Loser with Delusions of Grandeur

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
CervixHammer said:
http://archive.is/MFyN6



Bernstein?
Gamaliel?
NorthBySouthBaranof?
DragonDragon?
Click to expand...
upload_2016-5-19_5-16-19.png
 
It's cute that he doesn't realize 90% of his human followers muted him by his third "gaaaaaamergaaaate!!!"
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Hellfire
He's a Wikipedian autist to the core. Water isn't wet unless at least three scientific studies of dubious quality have been published on it, preferably followed by a Guardian article. Someone could be posting the ultimate truth of the universe on Twitter and Bernie would sneer at it because "lol five followers".
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Army Burger, Feline Darkmage, Portajohn and 2 others
Solzhenitsyn said:
He's a Wikipedian autist to the core. Water isn't wet unless at least three scientific studies of dubious quality have been published on it, preferably followed by a Guardian article. Someone could be posting the ultimate truth of the universe on Twitter and Bernie would sneer at it because "lol five followers".
Click to expand...

But it's okay to claim that a "GamerGater" is a literal terrorist based on a claim from autisticasexual.tumblr.com
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Army Burger, Feline Darkmage, Portajohn and 2 others
The man is the literal walking epitome of everything wrong with wikipedia its policies and its moderation team. Sometimes I can't believe someone would be so obsessively autistic and biased over wikipedia articles, or in fact that they are actually paid contractors to see certain wiki pages are scrubbed of "wrongthink"
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Portajohn and Hellfire
Brandobaris said:
The man is the literal walking epitome of everything wrong with wikipedia its policies and its moderation team. Sometimes I can't believe someone would be so obsessively autistic and biased over wikipedia articles, or in fact that they are actually paid contractors to see certain wiki pages are scrubbed of "wrongthink"
Click to expand...

Actually this lunatic and Lyurong are examples of how eventually Wikipedia policies work. Unfortunately, anything remotely goobergape-related is still utter shit. Just not as bad as those two nuts want it to be.

If I were in charge of it, the first thing I'd do is delete Wu's article for lack of notability and then slash the GG article to the bone for more or less the same reason. It's a dumb meme war with very little notability and should only have an article that explains in broad strokes some general grasp of what happened, rather than a tedious blow by blow of every imagined atrocity by both sides, as if it were an actual battle that mattered with those autistic infoboxes listing casualties and leaders and all that shit.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Army Burger, Ohoolihan, ASU and 10 others
AnOminous said:
Actually this lunatic and Lyurong are examples of how eventually Wikipedia policies work. Unfortunately, anything remotely goobergape-related is still utter shit. Just not as bad as those two nuts want it to be.

If I were in charge of it, the first thing I'd do is delete Wu's article for lack of notability and then slash the GG article to the bone for more or less the same reason. It's a dumb meme war with very little notability and should only have an article that explains in broad strokes some general grasp of what happened, rather than a tedious blow by blow of every imagined atrocity by both sides, as if it were an actual battle that mattered with those autistic infoboxes listing casualties and leaders and all that shit.
Click to expand...

Theres no way for wikipedia to report GG accurately, the well is poisoned. Unbiased articles are not within acceptable wikipedia standards. The whole thing should be nuked from orbit, as well as any article on wikipedia discussing internet drama, internet celebrities and the like. You expect a web encyclopedia staffed with people that take the Washington post, NY Mag, and The Guardian of accurate unbiased reporting as sources on internet flame wars? That's like saying liveleaks and whatreallyhappened.com is a plausible reliable source.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Portajohn and Hellfire
Brandobaris said:
Theres no way for wikipedia to report GG accurately, the well is poisoned. Unbiased articles are not within acceptable wikipedia standards. The whole thing should be nuked from orbit, as well as any article on wikipedia discussing internet drama, internet celebrities and the like. You expect a web encyclopedia staffed with people that take the Washington post, NY Mag, and The Guardian of accurate unbiased reporting as sources on internet flame wars? That's like saying liveleaks and whatreallyhappened.com is a plausible reliable source.
Click to expand...

Sorry, those three you list are all considered real newspapers. They would be cited even by an actual encyclopedia. If you hunt sources for shit like the Britannica, they tend to cite "papers of record" just like Wikipedia does, and as a consequence, anything like an encyclopedia is at best a secondary source.

I mostly agree with you, though, at least about what should actually be done with the articles on the subject as they exist. You appear to think they should all just be nuked from orbit. I think they should be nuked from orbit and the remnants reconstituted into something actually neutral from the very, very few media sources whose discussions of the issue weren't just pure hatchet jobs.

These are so few that the article would be very, very short.

I do think the article should exist, though, because people in a few years are going to hear shit about something called gabbergrope and wonder what the fuck it is and look it up.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Army Burger, WhoopieDoo, Portajohn and 2 others
AnOminous said:
Sorry, those three you list are all considered real newspapers. They would be cited even by an actual encyclopedia. If you hunt sources for shit like the Britannica, they tend to cite "papers of record" just like Wikipedia does, and as a consequence, anything like an encyclopedia is at best a secondary source.
Click to expand...

Most of what people consider "real news" are authored by your Jesse Singals, your Nathan Graysons, your Patrick Klepeks, your Leigh Alexanders, etc etc... if that what wikipedia considers a reliable source, then I'd rather just make a thread on here on a particular news story, and then read the responses.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Portajohn and H3LLH4MM3R666
Brandobaris said:
Most of what people consider "real news" are authored by your Jesse Singals, your Nathan Graysons, your Patrick Klepeks, your Leigh Alexanders, etc etc... if that what wikipedia considers a reliable source, then I'd rather just make a thread on here on a particular news story, and then read the responses.
Click to expand...

But what's the alternative? Do you point fingers at specific journalists and say that you can't cite them because they're shit at their jobs? How would you determine that?
 
Brandobaris said:
Most of what people consider "real news" are authored by your Jesse Singals, your Nathan Graysons, your Patrick Klepeks, your Leigh Alexanders, etc etc... if that what wikipedia considers a reliable source, then I'd rather just make a thread on here on a particular news story, and then read the responses.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Sorry, reality isn't great. I sometimes consult my own paper copy of the 1968 Encyclopaedia Britannica (the last one that was worth a damn) to escape modern bullshit. Guess what, though? It often cites newspapers. Including shit like the Washington Post.

Seriously, get over it.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Army Burger, Sarcastic Username, Portajohn and 2 others
AnOminous said:
Well, yeah. Sorry, reality isn't great. I sometimes consult my own paper copy of the 1968 Encyclopaedia Britannica (the last one that was worth a damn) to escape modern bullshit. Guess what, though? It often cites newspapers. Including shit like the Washington Post.

Seriously, get over it.
Click to expand...

lol why are you apologising over reality? Are you God? It is what it is.

Solzhenitsyn said:
But what's the alternative? Do you point fingers at specific journalists and say that you can't cite them because they're shit at their jobs? How would you determine that?
Click to expand...

There isn't really such a thing as a Journalist anymore, if their ever was. It's easy for a Professor to say their Journalism student that as a Journalist that you should avoid bias. But the real world isn't perfect, and not being perfect means the Journalist doesn't operate in a vacuum. You are constantly being pushed by market forces, your owner, threats to your job, advertisers, corporate lobbies, government lobbies, if you aren't following the modern lexicon or upset the powers that be then you aren't going to be there for much longer. Unless you want to shit on Tobacco, everyone is fine with that LOL

There's no real alternative, other than trying to find many news sources, as long as they aren't under the same umbrella company. Doing your own research (since most Journalists simply parrot each other), and then applying your own critical thinking skills. I recall several pranks being played on wikipedia, where they cited articles which cited articles that led to nowhere, and technically the articles broke no wiki rules, and were only taken down after the ruse was revealed.
 
The aforementioned sources can generally be trusted, unless contrasting data comes up, but verifying everything you read takes more work than people have time for.

Take for instance, the Utah State shooting threat letter that was mailed in response to Anita Sarkeesian's planned talk. The letter ranted about wanting to kill feminists, but made no mention of video games or gamergate. Anita also tweeted about the school getting a second, non-violent threat that included the gamergate hashtag. However, it was never made public

News sources then conflated the two, reporting that gamergate mailed a shooting letter wanting to kill feminists. From there, it becomes a wikipedia citation for 'gamergate threatened a mass shooting'. Wikipedians must assumes that reliable sources do their due diligence. This was truer 10-15 years ago when the print industry was still a thing, but the new media outlets that have cropped up in their place rely on an army of underpaid interns to regurgitate content

This results in situations such as the Guardian getting a false tip about a wiki admin arbitration case, printing a ruling that hasn't been made, which was then posted on wikipedia with a reliable citation. Even though the story was plainly false
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Army Burger, Scribbler, Brandobaris and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back