Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The thing which blackpills me the most is that there is not, and will not be, any effective counter-movement against these forces. There will be no real answer to Wikipedia's horrific monolithic institution. People will foolishly look towards AI like Grok as their savior, as if Elon Musk is the Morpheus to your Neo and not the O'Brien to your Winston, and then be Shocked Pikachu when they get sold down the river next.

One side will do anything to win because they value their cause more than their own lives, and the other will value their own comfortable individual lived existences, trying to save the world at their own leisure. The trannies will win, the socialists will win, because they're the ones playing to win. Our stupid little posts on this forum won't matter, regardless of how great of points we make or how expertly we craft our rhetoric. We're all in the path of a speeding bullet trying to verbally jujitsu our way into winning a gunfight.

Are there even any prominent conservative figures anymore? It's so fucking over. None of them have true credibility, and the couple who might aren't going to say shit about this except in order to grift ad revenue from the outrage views. The structural asymmetry between the left and right is fucking abysmal. They see an institution as a flag to be captured, but the right sees institutions as either pure or tainted, and once it's been tainted, it's written off as lost. Maybe a stray person here or there will "fight back," but they're going to be another Jordan Peterson eaten by the machine. That nigga couldn't even give people to clean their rooms, what hope did he have of stopping the ideological infiltration of "intellectual" institutions?

We make fun of these fuckers for wasting their lives on Wikipedia, but that's how they fucking win. We make fun of them for winning and then get pissy we're losing. It's this cycle of people who could make positive change losing faith in institutions, withdrawing from them or avoiding them, leaving a vacuum for ScottishFinnishRadish to sacrifice his worthless life furthering their insidious causes, as we're all too concerned with maintaining the status quo of our day-to-day existence, telling each other "get ready for the collapse of society!" while doing NOTHING to prevent that collapse and preserve a future for subsequent generations.

There's a reason the only people who rise to any prominence as a counter-voice are only in it to enrich themselves and often turn out to be frauds: They're trying to get rich and get out before society collapses and the rest of us kill each other fighting over the last can of tomato paste at Wal-Mart. Christopher Rufo isn't going to stop the fucking World Economic Forum. They know we know what they're doing, and they know it won't matter that we know.

Even this post is just pissing in the wind. I really should be more focused on enriching myself so I can get the fuck out before society collapses.

Banning Sanger is such an unbelievably stupid move I sort of wonder if the admins responsible won't get their chains yanked.
He's probably going to be held in the highest regard of his entire pissant life by his comrades (emphasis on "comrades").
 

Załączniki

  • 1782235442098.png
    1782235442098.png
    107,7 KB · Wyświetlenia: 0
He is also a critic of Wikipedia since leaving Wikipedia calling it "broken beyond repair" and that it lacks credibility and accuracy due to left-wing ideological bias.
“So much for the tolerant left” is an irony meme now but it is evermore apparent that now space (or perhaps even quarter) will not be given to those even just in opposition to mainstream progressivism. Denying or rebuking The Progress is not just another strand of opinion in democracy, it is a thought crime whose perpetrators must be expunged entirely
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
I remember eating somewhere in the midwest maybe 16 years ago. Walking back to my table and a balding man with a mullet sitting alone. He had a denim jacket that had "Wikipedia Editor" embroidered on it on his chair. I remember thinking, wow what a fucking loser. In hindsight he was probably better than what they have now.

He's probably a tranny now though.
 
Internet OGs really were too idealistic when speculating on the wonders that freedom of information and mass access would bring about.
Sad, really.
Internet OGs couldn't imagine a world where the people most invested in using the Internet were jobless trannies and scamming Indians. I can't blame them for their lack of imagination.
 
I like to think back to when they labeled the rape gangs in the UK as a moral panic and a conspiracy until they noticed they boiled the frog too quickly and had to revert.

Given the current stories coming out around the rape gangs those Wikipedia editors are also guilty of that systemic moral degeneracy at all levels of society, the same as every government official who wrote those girls off.
 
I don't know about Grokpedia, homies. I was trying to look up some info on a semi-obscure band. Not that well known, but well enough to have a basic Wiki article with their discography and members but not much else. Looking for more, I stumbled across Grokpedia. Some of the info sounded plausible, until I hit "One of their most popular songs is [Song That Absolutely Does Not Exist]."

We need some sort of Gell-Manning equivalent for AI.
 
FYI as of now he's actually banned. (archive)

Checking my browser history, this was the first time I've been on Wikipedia in months. While perusing the sperging over Sanger's return to Wikipedia I did discover something funny though, the page about Cultural Marxism still exists by proxy via a page about the quote "Long march through the institutions" which admits that taking over academia was indeed a marxist plan. They really can't help but gloat like movie villains.
The controversy about the Cultural Marxism page is what made me give up on Wikipedia completely. It's a real thing, Horkheimer and Adorno wrote a whole book about it, I own the book, I've read the book, and anyone can buy and read the book off Amazon to see what they were talking about. It's all there, they weren't joking about it, and it's a very real thing. However, if you cited the book this stuff comes from (Dialectic of Enlightenment) then Wikipedia editors would remove it for being "primary research." Literally quoting the book that the concept comes from and what the creators of the idea said about it was against their rules.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with citing the concept or discussing it. This was all an attempt at gaslighting via rules lawyering because people online were wise to the games of modern communists.
 
I don't know about Grokpedia, homies. I was trying to look up some info on a semi-obscure band. Not that well known, but well enough to have a basic Wiki article with their discography and members but not much else. Looking for more, I stumbled across Grokpedia. Some of the info sounded plausible, until I hit "One of their most popular songs is [Song That Absolutely Does Not Exist]."

We need some sort of Gell-Manning equivalent for AI.
Grokpedia has basically all the same problems Wikipedia has but with extra ai and right leaning political biases.
 
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
It sounds like a classic (and I do mean classic!, Mr. Vonnegut) catch-22: anyone trying to change the rules is itself proof that their motives for so attempting are sinister and cannot be trusted, and so must not be permitted to advocate any changes to the rules.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole