Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General

Check this shit out
Wyświetl załącznik 9185804
They dont consider Press TV reliable because of "holocaust denial"

And their source is the ADL who they also dont consider reliable
Wyświetl załącznik 9185808

The same people will tell you Jeet media is a reliable source for why Iran “won” the current conflict with the US.

Also where did they expect the ADL to land on the Israeli-Palestine conflict and antisemitism? What is their unbiased source for those things?

These editards can fuck right off.
 
I've been saying repeatedly that Wikipedia is bullshit and controlled by leftists the same way Reddit is. This is just more proof of that.

Reddit and Wikipedia are the website embodiments of "trust le science n le experts". They only consider mainstream news sources as valid sources. Anyone with enough money and power can manipulate Wikipedia, and dumbass normies will accept it as truth.

Just take a look at the Wikipedia page for Kiwi Farms to get an idea of who runs Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
 
Here's the leftist take of the situation about Sanger - https://www.reddit.com/r/technology...edia_cofounder_larry_sanger_banned_from_site/

Spiting these cockroaches is enough of a reason to support Sanger, that said I would advise everyone to have a read of their points.
Thanks for sharing. I'd hate for anyone to miss this:
a.png

As Reddit fags say any time a celebrity gets exposed for something: "Not surprised".
Speaking of not being surprised, is anyone else equally not-shocked by wikipedia's blatant pro-Nazi bias?
b.png
 
He's also a philosopher
no, he's a nigger.
his body of work is that of a horny undergrad going around circlejerk meetings with nerds and promoting his website ideas (nupedia, wikipedia, citizenuim).
is this considered work of a philosopher?
"How and Why I Taught My Toddler to Read"
"How to Think about Strong Collaboration among Professionals"
"Why Make Room for Experts in Web 2.0?"
or the 1 book he wrote
"Essays on Free Knowledge: The Origins of Wikipedia and the New Politics of Knowledge"
this is the same shit that a 50 yo childless dyke writes on HuffPost

> became an agnostic when he was 16
> In 2023, Sanger described himself as a Christian
yeah, he is a 50 yo dyke nigger.

philosopher means love/friend for/of wisdom.
it speaks for itself when you see him being a revolting teenager in 1984 and this phase ending in 2023. he spent his 20s, 30s, 40s being retarded and then came back full circle in his mid-50s.

Tragic irony: I used his wikipedia page to shit on his entire existence. get fucked retard.
 
That's kind of the entire point. The idea that people would use wikipedia as a place to amass information freely is long dead because the only people willing to spent any amount of time trying to moderate, vote, lead, etc. for free are going to be weirdos who only do it for their own ends with no leadership stepping in.

It's just reddit with a different structure.
Beyond this controlling information is a valuable tool and will always be something sought after by malicious actors, it just happens Wikipedia catered to liberal/leftist actors until they couldn’t be dislodged beyond a united attempt on multiple fronts. Legally, financially, and politically.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
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 faced a white internet populated by human beings, not today's digital shitting street.
you can not run an animal trough by the same rules you run a buffet, and yet an animal trough is what wiki became.

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.
whats the opposite of qft? because im quoting this nigger faggot for exceptional detachment from reality.
 
Jimmy Wales can suck my fat one. I'm sick of that cunt crying poor on the home page of that shithole site, that I use ONLY as a last resort, when I know they are rolling around in a literal Scrooge McDuck size pile of cash. Fuck Off Jimmy. Stay away from the children Jimmy, you've got that look about you son.
 
One of the most Orwellian rules concerns "wikilawyering". Its a rule that makes it against the rules to make arguments based on the rules. The written rules are said to be secondary to magical spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules of course is whatever the Cabal says it is in any given situation.
You are not on trial for editing the article, you are on trial for being on trial. Laws? Laws are illegal here! GUILTY!
 
>Wikipedia deboonks this with a Guardian article, a Vox article and two links to papers talking about "scientific racism" with no actual attempt at refuting the link
Wikipedo has a tendency to just find any article that they can which claims to "debunk" stuff that goes against major leftist narratives even if the aforementioned article doesn't carry any academic weight and is better described as a blog post or opinion piece. If you actually want to properly refute the study then you have to see if the methodology was any good and if alternative conclusions can reasonably be made from the results if and only if the methodology is acceptable. This is how you're supposed to engage with scientific papers in general; you're meant to analyze the whole thing yourself rather than search for somebody else's opinion.
I'm not saying that wikipedo articles should have counterarguments ready for every single study but at the very least they should remove the references to articles that carry no academic weight and simply say something to the effect of "the conclusion from xyz study is contested because of..."
 
If you ever have read anything history related on Wikipedia over the past 6 years you probably would have noticed "Most modern historians disagree with this however" pop up at the end of every sentence. everything that used to be accepted fact is now in question because an ethereal "modern historian" disagrees with it. 70% of the time theres never any citations for that claim either. if a tranny editor disagrees with the primary source who is reporting on whatever historical thing, suddenly the great "modern historian" appears.

Its a great way to revise history too, instead of straight up changing it, you present the "old truth" and add a notification next to it that says "<--- this is retarded and uncool though" without any context and the average reader immediately dismisses it because they don't want to be squares.
 
And their source is the ADL who they also dont consider reliable

Its far more convoluted than that. They consider the ADL to be only topic unreliable when it comes to anything that touches on Palestinians or any opposition to Israel policy concerning Palestinians. But the ADL is considered completely reliable reporting on any other country or group.

Thus anything the ADL says that can be remotely linked to palestinians or support for palestinians or even tangentially associated with anything to do with Palestinians is "unreliable". And yet anything the ADL says about Iran is 100% reliable per Wikipedia.
 
Here's my favorite Wikipedia article. Cancer seems pretty bad, but what if cancer got cancer?


Fantastic article. Without powerleveling too much, people were warning Jimmy Wales about his spending to his face since at least the late '00s. He's a petulant little tyrant (both online and in person) that would quickly become defensive and churlish when called out about it before, and certainly is doing the same now. I have personally seen him pitch little hissy fits when called out about this.

Think, realistically, about what the Wikimedia Foundation really needs to operate. Assuming their ~$2M spend on web hosting is reasonable, all you really need in addition to that is probably a leader (Wales, presumably), two or so IT guys, a volunteer coordinator or two, a finance person or two, and maybe a media spokesperson. Even that might be a stretch, as you could easily outsource a lot of labor to contractors or outside consultants (who, on the whole, might still be cheaper than the yearly salary and benefits for a full-time employee). Everything else is free to them: the authors provide their work for free, editors do their work for free, mods do it for free, etc. Rounding up and assuming ten employees, and assuming you're paying them really nice wages (say, $200k/yr. + benefits), that's probably another ~$4M in spend. That's ~$6M total for the whole operation. That's a level of donations they were getting back in the '00s. In 2024-2025, their annual spend was a staggering $190M, seemingly largely going to a bloated engineering staff, ~10 HR staffers (how??), 10+ staffers in "Legal and Community Advocacy" (those are two different things, so who the hell knows what that means), and more. Why should people donate a single cent to an organization that's so ridiculously wasteful and that largely exists due to volunteer efforts?

This sort of cancer is why it's hard not to hate most non-profits. There is no realistic market force (other than the possible loss of donations) to force them to be lean and mean, even if they start that way. That's why, for example, the Red Cross paid a "Chief Transformation Officer" $650k to seemingly do a whole lot of nothing. And, of course, the whole organization gets to shroud itself in the image of being prosocial and "good" despite this nonsense.
 
LLMs will either be regulated to death or get ideological capture by the same people that ruined Wikipedia.
Hate to tell you this, It already is.

Had GPT openly tell me it cant share certain information with me as it doesnt want to endorse "hateful ideologies". It was obviously because their morality or safety team or whatever put in hard guard rails.

I was just asking for book recommendations, not even political or manifestos. Just dark fantasy books that are unapologetic with their discrimination or caste system.

The point is for them all to pretend certain facts dont exist long enough for it to manifest through simple societal amnesia as the avenues to access information become less and less.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole