Infected RationalWiki - Whiny hugbox for spergs and a clusterfuck of neverending drama on a rapidly declining website.

David Gerard has been pissing off yet another cryptocurrency community by shitting up its Wikipedia entry. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4b76i4/who_is_david_gerard_and_why_does_he_keep_editing/

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Ethereum&project=en.wikipedia.org

He has made 15.3% of all edits to the page, most of it removals as he has only added 1,091 bytes.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Talk:Ethereum&project=en.wikipedia.org

On the talk page of the article he is 30.5% of all edits and has added 14,586 bytes, or 30.1% of all the added text.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Rou and chimpburgers
Bungleboy said:
Cryptocurrencies in general are almost as dumb and self defeating as RW so David Gerard's misadventures is likely to give us a decently entertaining tardfight.
Click to expand...

Reading that Reddit discussion just hurt my brain. DG loves to hide behind Wikipedia procedure and the cryptocurrency-tards are, well, just that.
 
The Kebab and Calculator said:
Reading that Reddit discussion just hurt my brain. DG loves to hide behind Wikipedia procedure and the cryptocurrency-tards are, well, just that.
Click to expand...

It's still ridiculous for someone blatantly biased against a subject to essentially hide behind their admin status to vandalize the article they by their admission don't even understand.
 
I more or less agree with David on cryptocurrencies in general. However, the problem is that the man has serious difficulty with the concept of actually listening to other people to understand what they're saying as well as nuance in general. Bitcoin is no exception here.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: chimpburgers, The Kebab and Calculator and Cynical
WhoopieDoo said:
I more or less agree with David on cryptocurrencies in general. However, the problem is that the man has serious difficulty with the concept of actually listening to other people to understand what they're saying as well as nuance in general. Bitcoin is no exception here.
Click to expand...

He's basically a less openly crazy Ryulong. Same tunnel vision, same zealotry, same unwarranted self importance, he's just better at not being as much of an unhinged dickbag.

And you're right, cryptocurrencies have a lot of level headed things you can criticize them over. Hell, GamerGate can be critiqued on many things and you don't have to be a psychotic hateful zealot about it, but both Gerard and Cohen can't be asked to abide by their own ethos of the site they are on and rationally, dispassionately take apart all the reasons why those topics have logical flaws.

Instead, they'd rather say "it sucks and if you like you suck", and if anyone calls them on such pettiness and shallow argumentation, they are insulted, harassed and driven away while the both of them, while Cohen in his unhinged aspie way and Gerard in his mod who thinks he's god way, try to silence all dissent so they cannot be declared in the slightest bit of error.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Uncanny Valley, lolwut, APerson and 3 others
WhoopieDoo said:
I more or less agree with David on cryptocurrencies in general. However, the problem is that the man has serious difficulty with the concept of actually listening to other people to understand what they're saying as well as nuance in general. Bitcoin is no exception here.
Click to expand...

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: BSC, Blatant hypocrite, 女鬼 and 7 others
WhoopieDoo said:
I more or less agree with David on cryptocurrencies in general. However, the problem is that the man has serious difficulty with the concept of actually listening to other people to understand what they're saying as well as nuance in general. Bitcoin is no exception here.
Click to expand...

The purpose of an article on a technical subject is generally not to attack it or support it, though, but describe it.

The knowledge Gerard has of the actual technologies involved can be summed up in the two words "jack" and "shit."

Cynical said:
And you're right, cryptocurrencies have a lot of level headed things you can criticize them over.
Click to expand...

The "problem" with cryptocurrencies is not that they exist or that there's anything "wrong" with them, but messianic autism from spastics who think they're going to somehow destroy the banking system tomorrow.

They're a niche commodity and likely will remain so.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Uncanny Valley, Adamska and APerson
AnOminous said:
The purpose of an article on a technical subject is generally not to attack it or support it, though, but describe it.

The knowledge Gerard has of the actual technologies involved can be summed up in the two words "jack" and "shit."



The "problem" with cryptocurrencies is not that they exist or that there's anything "wrong" with them, but messianic autism from spastics who think they're going to somehow destroy the banking system tomorrow.

They're a niche commodity and likely will remain so.
Click to expand...
They're a different facet of the "sell your children and buy gold or the Illumimasonelksclub will consume your soul!" crowd.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Moexlibu
HipstrsGonnaHip said:
So has Kitsunelaine done anything retarded lately?

Wait, wrong question. Of course they have. Has Kitsunelaine done anything retarded lately on rationalwiki?
Click to expand...

Mostly active off RW.
https://www.reddit.com/user/kitsunelaine

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php...unelaine&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_X-Files&diff=prev&oldid=1643029

Existing: "While it likely was not the intention of the writers to do this, the show's run went hand-in-hand with an explosion of interest in [[ufology]], [[cryptozoology]], and the [[paranormal]] in general, and as one of the most high-profile purveyors of such ideas, it is difficult to argue that this was coincidental."

He added this: "If it wasn't during it's original run, it most certainly was true enough during the show's 2016 revival, in which the show heavily integrated the crazy ways conspiracy theorists had evolved during it's absence back into itself in an effort to retool the entire mythology to fit modern conspiracy culture."
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Randall Fragg, Uncanny Valley and chimpburgers
Hellfire said:
He added this: "If it wasn't during it's original run, it most certainly was true enough during the show's 2016 revival, in which the show heavily integrated the crazy ways conspiracy theorists had evolved during it's absence back into itself in an effort to retool the entire mythology to fit modern conspiracy culture."
Click to expand...

I'm shocked this wasn't reverted as soon as someone saw the weasel words.

[EDIT] Oh wait, Rationalwiki, not wikipedia. Nevermind, no so shocked.
 
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php...nders&curid=171857&diff=1647888&oldid=1647603

Article needs massive re-write
This whole article needs touching up, its too obvious it was written by people who are wearing bernie-print underoos. The whole legit criticisms section is completely irrelevant because it basically glosses over his actual problem with a "meh" Also the anti-hillary circlejerk is showing really bad. I would rewrite it but damn I ave no idea where to begin. Sandflapjack (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So which legitimate criticisms against him do you have? Lets hear 'em... Pizzameister (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A re-write may be needed just because a lot of the grammar and syntax in the "Legit Crit" section is terrible. I'm staying out the politics though. Petey Plane (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

all those in the article are legitimate critisisms, though it is missing his very dismissive personality, inability to work with those in opposition and his approval of nuclear waste dumping. The tone of the article is too apologetic is the problem. Every single problem brought up is brushed aside. Every sentence literally ends with either "but he made up for it later" or "but h-hillary" I dont think there is another article on the wiki so dismissive. Sandflapjack (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Click to expand...
 
I think this primary season has the potential to cause yet another rift among the RW faithful...

On the one hand they are all über-liberal and thus have to like Bernie Sanders, on the other hand they are all über-feminist and have to suck Hillary's cock just for the fact that she is a woman...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GabeRegan
Moexlibu said:
On the one hand they are all über-liberal and thus have to like Bernie Sanders, on the other hand they are all über-feminist and have to suck Hillary's cock just for the fact that she is a woman...
Click to expand...

True progressives have long despised Hillary for her dishonesty and repeated betrayals of her stated "ideals" whenever there was a momentary political advantage. People don't forget a knife in the back. At least they don't if they aren't retarded.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: SHITTAHS CLOGGED! and APerson
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back