Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General

Wyróżnienie
Sayer of the N-Word powiedział(a):
Conservatives seething over Wikipedia for not affirming their delusions is always great. The site has its problems, but none of them would be fixed with an influx of painfully stupid X users who'll get angry and confused that they can't just write whatever they want like on social media.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
And this quoted post is a great example of what we're taking about.

ideologues taking over a space that is supposed to be an Apolitical tool, and turning it into a political spergfest that greatly departs from its original intent, some political cheerleaders cheer for the entire thing burning down as long as its their side pouring the gasoline. Why does it matter of its "conservative or "liberal" or "leftist" as long as its properly sourced? bad information can come from anywhere, but if you're going to tolerate it if it comes from a source you like, you're doing a great disservive to wikipedia and potentially doing great harm to the public. grow the fuck up
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Harm powiedział(a):
This just sounds like an Ouroboros of "rules" designed to prevent anyone from changing anything.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

The European Union's wet dream. The goal of any progressive movement.

Umm, sorry sweetie, We arent "Technically" violating your rights, you just didnt file your request in the right manner.

God, is this what The 40k administratum is like?
 
din365 powiedział(a):
ideologues taking over a space that is supposed to be an Apolitical tool, and turning it into a political spergfest that greatly departs from its original intent, and some political cheerleaders cheer for the entire thing burning down as long as its their side pouring the gasoline.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
People will get mad at you for wanting to defund or abolish certain "non-partisan institutions" when 9 times out of 10 said institutions have had this done to them.
 
sodaboard powiedział(a):
i love when i make a minor edit to an article only to have it be immediately reverted and someone that's been a user for 25 fucking years leaves a giant passive-aggressive wall of wordswordswords on my talk page about how what it means to be a "good" contributor
bitch i was just fixing a typo
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
This is part of why Wikipedo should be completely ignored and viewed as absolute nonsense.
 
Sayer of the N-Word powiedział(a):
Conservatives seething over Wikipedia for not affirming their delusions is always great. The site has its problems, but none of them would be fixed with an influx of painfully stupid X users who'll get angry and confused that they can't just write whatever they want like on social media.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
>Troon and communist powermods rewrite and erase entire swaths of information to push a singular political agenda with impunity

>Entire thread detailing thousands of examples of this blatant propagandizing and misuse of power across multiple years

>It's gotten so bad that they even jannied away the Co-Founder of the site because he called them biased and unreliable

>"Conservatives seething over Wikipedia for not affirming their delusions is always great."

 
Sicko Hunter powiedział(a):
Wikipedia is several thousand mega autistic nerds that are well aware that they control the very first thing most people see when they look up a president, ongoing conflict, famous person etc and use that to further their own political agenda. When you type virtually anything into Google the first or second or third link will almost always be a Wikipedia link. They say "Come on in anyone can edit!" but the reality is unless you're already inside the club your edits will be immediately reverted and ignored. To get into the club you must have the same worldview as the people already in. All of this is intentional. They do not want you in the club. This is all about power, controlling the narrative and making sure people have the "right" opinion.
Wyświetl załącznik 9181805
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Yeah, Wikipedia isn't any different than any other institution that becomes subject to Conquest's law about left-wing political takeovers. This shit was all apparent in academia as early as the 1980s after the Boomerlib New Left began taking over the faculty lounge, and a similar dynamic has played out across any information-disseminating organization in the last 60 years. It's why shitlibs have been coping and seething about Fox News for the last 30 years, because it barely bothers addressing even the milquetoast moderate left narratives presented by network television.
 
Sayer of the N-Word powiedział(a):
The site has its problems, but none of them would be fixed with an influx of painfully stupid X users who'll get angry and confused that they can't just write whatever they want like on social media.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
LOL, same boilerplate "We're not saying there aren't issues, but that doesn't mean the criticism is valid" response. Get some new magic spells, for fuck's sake. :story:
 
Kalergi powiedział(a):
Yeah, Wikipedia isn't any different than any other institution that becomes subject to Conquest's law about left-wing political takeovers. This shit was all apparent in academia as early as the 1980s after the Boomerlib New Left began taking over the faculty lounge, and a similar dynamic has played out across any information-disseminating organization in the last 60 years. It's why shitlibs have been coping and seething about Fox News for the last 30 years, because it barely bothers addressing even the milquetoast moderate left narratives presented by network television.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Conquests law is that any institution or organization that isn't explicitly right-wing will be co-opted by leftists eventually right?
 
Kalergi powiedział(a):
LOL, same boilerplate "We're not saying there aren't issues, but that doesn't mean the criticism is valid" response. Get some new magic spells, for fuck's sake. :story:
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
They've openly admitted in ArbCom decisions that they do not care in the least if something in a WikiPedo article is literally false. All that matters is if it's "consensus."
 
Vriljami powiedział(a):
Trump's family added to Ratlines wikipedia
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
1782275104969.png
1782275132122.png
Lmao. What's the average number of times Trump has been typed by each wikipedia editor in the last decade? I really wonder how these people will look back on this period of their life. Are they going to pretend that they weren't spending 10 hours a day adding to Trump to articles with negative connotations?

My mother-in-law is like this and she'll randomly get upset because she's thinking about him. She's literally had a brain aneurysm so I have to cut her some slack.
 
seal powiedział(a):
Wyświetl załącznik 9185569
Wyświetl załącznik 9185573
Lmao. What's the average number of times Trump has been typed by each wikipedia editor in the last decade? I really wonder how these people will look back on this period of their life. Are they going to pretend that they weren't spending 10 hours a day adding to Trump to articles with negative connotations?

My mother-in-law is like this and she'll randomly get upset because she's thinking about him. She's literally had a brain aneurysm so I have to cut her some slack.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Thank you for getting the "india times" source in the shot.
 
Harm powiedział(a):
Even reading all the various "rules" he allegedly broke made me nauseous. You can't encourage people to join Wikipedia in order to affect change at Wikipedia? You can't try to change Wikipedia if your desired changes run contrary to the current zeitgeist's ideals (thus making all changes inherently considered hostile)? You can't argue against their current ideals because it turns the website into a battleground?

This just sounds like an Ouroboros of "rules" designed to prevent anyone from changing anything. The website is already a battleground of narrative building troglodytes who don't want to make an encyclopedia, they want their own Ministry of Truth.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

They openly have regular official drives to encourage people/activists to join up for the purpose of many thinly veiled ideological motivations including fucking up historical articles in the name of feminism et al. So I have no idea how they can deny Sanger the same thing other than ideological bias.
 
Reminds me of this one super active moderator on Wikipedia who also had a weird obsession with adding alternative links to the article for breast. Like, he'd create articles called MAMABOOZAS just for them to relink to 'breasts'. There was upwards of like 30.
 
Harm powiedział(a):
It's so fucking over
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I think you're overestimating the impact of wikipedia in this current environment. Information and society right now is so siloed and varied that there isn't really a single arbiter or authority of truth right now(which is a good thing if its these lib fags controlling what's true). The average social media vertical short form video shitpost with even a 100k views probably has more impact than a fagipedia article with a similar amount of views or more a month or so.

And it's not just a single video either, it's dozens and hundreds of videos & posts, which leads to a culture & some form of community which has exponentially more impact than any amount of wiki articles. People don't really scroll on any encyclopedia for 8+ hours a day and find friends there but they do on social media. It might've been different a decade or two ago but I think their monopoly now has lessened.
 
Hmm, ideologically captured shithole full of gay retarded tranny faggots who act like women including a TRUE AND HONEST witchhunt, ejection, and circle-queef (er, circle-ditch-witching, er, circle dilation..?).

WAOW

letterman.gif
 
Lord Sillynipples powiedział(a):
Any words from someone named "Chaotic Enby" are automatically not worth engaging with on principle.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I used to occasionally edit there and sometimes read a place called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents which is basically their drama board(many troon related incidents. This is the last post I remember reading there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1219#h-Transphobia_(2)-20260329134700 where the user being accused of doing a heckin breaking of 1 of their thousands of arbitary rules wasn't immediately banned, which is very rare)

I clearly remember seeing the "enby" name a bunch and I think it's from that user popping up many times on that incidents page(but also in other places related to political issues), being as libby and politically charged as you'd expect based on that name. This is xey page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User/Chaotic_Enby and xey contribs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special/contributions/Chaotic_Enby . Of note is xeir edit count, 45k edits in 4 years is insane and puts xem in the top ~4k users of users of all time edit count, where I think most of those 4k users are much older accounts

This is the type of insane faggotry that prevails there, rational normies who only occasionally edit always get mobbed by these degen troons & shitlibs who spend every waking moment online trying to push their sicknesses everywhere. Mostly stopped editing a while ago as it's clear trying to beat these raped fags at their own game is a losing battle and even if you win on there I don't think it amounts to anything in reality. Maybe they only have the online world, so that's why they take it so seriously?

It's funny though that they appear to be getting raped by the robots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Blue-Sonnet-20260624025600-Balash-Vologases-20260624025100
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole