Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General
Bro there's an entire cabal of wikipedos of various ranks dedicated to whitewashing Hamas and the wholesale slaughter of Israelis in general what sort of Jewish 5D chess is this supposed to be
Jesus fucking Christ all those little hen pecking rules he mentions makes it seem like you can't do anything without somehow esoterically breaking one them
Bro there's an entire cabal of wikipedos of various ranks dedicated to whitewashing Hamas and the wholesale slaughter of Israelis in general what sort of Jewish 5D chess is this supposed to be
It's not even bullying. These people are the ones who do the bullying. They're just much effective bullies online because IRL they're not physically imposing or socially confident at all. But not every bully is an 80s movie jock, sometimes they're nerds.
Society's best defense against these people is having a spine. Saying "No."
actual bullies are basically never the jocks.
actual bullies are generally peoplw who got ""bullied"" (socially ostracized for being conniving antisocial dorks) in school and are now taking that out on people who can't reasonably fight back against them, because as adults these people never truly grew out of being antisocial conniving dorks.
the "big mean jock shoving poor scholar timmy into da locher" is hollywood tripe (often written by these same dorks). genuine bullying between peers is actually very quite rare, and even when that does happen its usually still being orchestrated/pushed by some dork in higher power. i know from experience.
case in point. bullying isn't calling a dipshit a dipshit, that's the kind of logic used to write off kiwi as a "bullying" site. it's shit like what these wokepedoioids do. fuckin' dorks.
To anyone who thinks the Internet has gotten significantly worse to the point that it's unrecognizable and unusable, I implore you to consider this solution: please put more women in positions of power. Make them jannies, make them admins. Give them the power to ban and silence you. Even allow transexuals as long as they're the good ones. Women build empires. They run corporations. They keep the wheels of civilization turning. Every internet community has been made better by filling up the moderation squad with women. When you look back on an old website and wonder why it is thriving to this day, that is why. That is always why.
If you disagree you're an incel. Fuck you. Please more feminine snark online! It's the only thing that will save us!!
There's a "clear consensus" because the community is such an insular in-group of tranny freaks that they have effectively established an invasive species hivemind that's parasitically sapping the resources of institutions they've mendaciously infiltrated while devouring the founder alive for the sin of desiring different outcomes.
How is this not an unabashed admission that they will simply "establish a clear consensus" against anyone who disagrees with them?
Bro there's an entire cabal of wikipedos of various ranks dedicated to whitewashing Hamas and the wholesale slaughter of Israelis in general what sort of Jewish 5D chess is this supposed to be
Liberalism is the destroyer of objective moral values and group cohesion to the disadvantage of the main demographic so consider those Wikipedos as useful idiots while we descend further into the blackest of all possible Niggerhells under their secret masters' purview. There is hierarchy among the small hats too, after all. Not that bad if a few swarthoid Israelis have to bite it as well.
There's a "clear consensus" because the community is such an insular in-group of tranny freaks that they have effectively established an invasive species hivemind that's parasitically sapping the resources of institutions they've mendaciously infiltrated while devouring the founder alive for the sin of desiring different outcomes.
How is this not an unabashed admission that they will simply "establish a clear consensus" against anyone who disagrees with them?
I tried reading that discussion that got to him being rebanned and it was the most autistic, labyrinthine, "he's broken this rule and that rule and doesn't seem to know he's done it", which of course is entirely be design so they (the autistic mods/admins who run that site for free and know all these rules in and out) can justify any ban they want, or justify locking a thread once they are conscientious happy on the narrative (the Yasuke one is the one I remember always).
Bro there's an entire cabal of wikipedos of various ranks dedicated to whitewashing Hamas and the wholesale slaughter of Israelis in general what sort of Jewish 5D chess is this supposed to be
All this does is just further convince me that Wikipedia has become nothing but a narrative device for the Left and pseudo intellectuals.
The worst I had seen remains the time where Ubisoft announced Yasuke as the protagonist and labelled him a samurai, which Wikipedia ran with using Thomas Lockley and his fanfiction as source of credibility while every other source afterwards was derived from Lockley or ends up back at him.
Before this all went down Yasuke was not mentioned as a samurai on the Wikipedia page but as a servant/retinue, which you can see if you move back to edits pre-2024 times, the Japanese wiki page still does not mention him as samurai IIRC.
It's incredible how easily they just source themself and try to change history into their preferred narrative.
The latest thing that made me want to pull my hair out was the Belfast immigrant guy trying to behead some random dude, the wikipedia article mentions up to this day 'a stabbing attack allegedly committed by a Sudanese man'... As if there has not already been given proof, statements and actual videos showing this piece of shit on top of another person trying to murder him in the middle of the street.
To hell with Wikipedia and all the retards who fund it, their rules are built to allow twisted narratives and quash any meaningful discussion that doesn't fit their ideology.
According to the WMF, Wikipedia (in all language editions) now receives 16 billion page views per month.[21] The WMF spends roughly $2 million USD per year on Internet hosting[11] and employs some 300 staff.[22]
The modern Wikipedia has 11-12 times as many page views than it had in 2005,[23] but the WMF is spending 33 times as much to serve up these pages to the readers.[24] This seems reasonable given that they have improved reliability, redundancy and backups. More concerning is the fact that since 2005 the WMF has hired hundreds of extra employees and is now spending 1,250 times as much overall,[25] which seems rather excessive considering that the actual amount of work they have to do is pretty much the same. WMF's spending has gone up by 85% over the past three years.[26]
After we burn through our reserves, it seems likely that the next step for the WMF will be going into debt to support continued runaway spending, followed by bankruptcy. At that point there are several large corporations (Google and Facebook come to mind) that will be more than happy to pay off the debts, take over the encyclopedia, fire the WMF staff, and start running Wikipedia as a profit-making platform. There are a lot of ways to monetize Wikipedia, all undesirable. The new owners could sell banner advertising, allow uneditable "sponsored articles" for those willing to pay for the privilege, or even sell information about editors and users.
Banning Sanger is such an unbelievably stupid move I sort of wonder if the admins responsible won't get their chains yanked. As unlikable as Jimmy Wales is, him coming out in Sanger's defense indicates he actually understands what a bad look this is. I bet he has no problem whatsoever with Wikipedia being as biased as it is though, he just doesn't want it to show that much.
