Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General

Campbell_Trio powiedział(a):

Grokpedia has basically all the same problems Wikipedia has but with extra ai and right leaning political biases.

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

That should be obvious.

Nothing will substitute real research done by a competent individual.

All these collective wikis will fail at objectively.

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...

Its a good example of why Anarcho-anything is doomed to failure.

Humans like hierarchies, and they like rules.

Well rules require authority. Authority means having power over others.

The feature submission is wrong. A reason was given for Sanger's ban. He tried to get some shit-eating pajeets to join, appearing on a shitskin podcast calling for it. Wikileftists don't want a bunch of articles on the culinary delights of the shit slurpee or on the sacredness of cow bestiality, so they banned him.

Personally I don't get why so many Christians feel the need to ally with pajeets. They literally worship 33 gorillion demons, after all. The proper Christian thing is to convert them. But instead Sanger allied with these shit eaters

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...

The people at Wikipedia demonstrate with their own rules that they know exactly what they are doing in terms of propagandizing and manipulating the public.

And they've codified a means of preventing you from doing it to them.

GOY MENACE powiedział(a):

That should be obvious.

Nothing will substitute real research done by a competent individual.

All these collective wikis will fail at objectively.

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Also going in to make a competitor for something purely because "da troons and leftists ruined it and hide the truth" just makes it obvious all you are gonna do is push your agenda and your political points.
This also applies to if a leftist tried to make a competitor for something they think miggers or right wingers ruined and hide the truth on because you can't be neutral and accurate when your actions are fueled by political values.

Who are the primary bankroll these days for wikipedia?

JustWant2PlayVidya powiedział(a):

gatekeeping

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

I know gatekeeping as a term is thrown around negatively but you can BET YOUR DAMN ASS it's considered A okay to gatekeep in this case because otherwise"chuds will take over and spread far right propaganda". It's fucking MATI inducing seeing the level of control the left has in seemingly everything. You can't avoid those fuckers.

Dramaposting is good powiedział(a):

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

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

The islam-oriented wiki articles i assume are totally non biased and aren't full of commie horseshit from far left editors and taqqiya horseshit from muslim editors.

Campbell_Trio powiedział(a):

Also going in to make a competitor for something purely because "da troons and leftists ruined it and hide the truth" just makes it obvious all you are gonna do is push your agenda and your political points.

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

The problem is Wikipedia is handcrafted by a dedicated legion of no-lifers to be as faggy as possible while Grok is an AI aggregating online information that may or may not be total nonsense. On Grok, there's no bans on certain news outlets for producing wrongthink, no cabals of Wikipedos lording over subjects and rejecting information based on their own viewpoints, no gay drama, no begging for donations for multi-million NGOs.

Grok doesn't ban sources, nor does it have editors with their own biases, nor does it add little asides to try and whitewash or demonize the subject on hand. At most you can request Grok to reedit a section of an article if you believe something's incorrect. How this system works and if it can be abused, I'm not sure. Yes, Elon Musk has swung right for the past couple years and he explicitly created it as a response to Wikipedia's own left-wing biases, but there's no evidence to prove that Grokipedia has a noticeable right-wing bias, unlike Wikipedia. It's an mindless algorithm that maybe has had some tweaks behind the scenes to suit its creator's fancy.

Conservapedia is the rightwing Wikipedia, if anything.

I had to check the date on this feature twice because I was surprised as hell it took Wikipedia this long to purge their version of the Old Bolsheviks.

The best thing Wikipedia has ever produced is the fan encyclopedia concept so I can look up item locations in a videogame wiki or read about characters in a TV series wiki. For non-nerd stuff a Wiki page is always going to be someone's political opinion, a copypaste from an academic textbook or a publicist's stealthy work.

It's really impossible to know what a shithole nightmare that site is without having spent some time on the inside. It's been unusably bad for all the reasons you see today since at least 2010, probably earlier, it's just gotten more obvious as the issues grew more and more ingrained into the culture of the site itself.

Random Internet Person powiedział(a):

So how long before Grokpedia rises to rule of Wikipedia’s ashes?

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Never, until it actually knows shit.
Last time I tried to use it, I asked it about the Russian intervention and invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Grokpedia had no idea what that was.

I knew it was bad when this awful entry was allowed to remain:

Transgender genocide

There has never been a single "trans genocide" in the history of the world... except on wikipedia of course.
--
Notice the following also:

Edie Brickell belted Paul Simon first, he called cops ON HER. She is 24 yrs younger and he would have been 72 or 73 yrs old. Suddenly sounds a little more serious right? It is NOWHERE in her Wikipedia entry.

Now go to Paul's page and go down to Personal Life, Edie Brickell:

"On April 26, 2014, Simon and Brickell were involved in a domestic dispute in which police responded to their Connecticut residence. Each was issued a summons to appear in court on disorderly conduct charges."

Makes it sound like they were both equally at fault, doesn't it?
They were not.

Wikipedia often (deliberately?) downplays domestic abuse when its women who do it--this is just the latest example I discovered by accident.

Wolfe Tone powiedział(a):

The feature submission is wrong. A reason was given for Sanger's ban. He tried to get some shit-eating pajeets to join, appearing on a shitskin podcast calling for it. Wikileftists don't want a bunch of articles on the culinary delights of the shit slurpee or on the sacredness of cow bestiality, so they banned him.

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Even without knowing anything about the topic it's obvious for anyone with brain that the hindu nationalists are right that wikipedia is biased against them in favor of the muzzies, because leftists will always side with muzzies over everyone else. I don't doubt for one second that wikitroons have whitewashed the shit out of muzzie terrorism in India, after all they do it with every article touching on muzzie crimes in any country. That hindu nationalists are also retarded apes doesn't change the fact that western leftist bias is so predictable and blatant that people all over the world recognize it.

Hey Johnny Bravo powiedział(a):

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.

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Whenever some faggot tries to pretend cultural marxism isn't a thing that exists and is responsible for the enshitification of everything as part of the commie march through the institutions they will usually pull the Wikipedia article to deboonk the existence of it.

I like to just reply with the literal writings of the movement like you said. Marxists dot org just oneshots them.

homophobic fujoshi powiedział(a):

Even without knowing anything about the topic it's obvious for anyone with brain that the hindu nationalists are right that wikipedia is biased against them in favor of the muzzies, because leftists will always side with muzzies over everyone else. I don't doubt for one second that wikitroons have whitewashed the shit out of muzzie terrorism in India, after all they do it with every article touching on muzzie crimes in any country. That hindu nationalists are also retarded apes doesn't change the fact that western leftist bias is so predictable and blatant that people all over the world recognize it.

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

You clearly don't know anything about hindu nationalists. They're a retarded cross between muzzie terrorists and wokies, who can't get over how turks conquered and raped their ancestors so easily and then when the turks weakened the brits came and conquered them even more easily, so they want to do "decolonization" by making cow bestiality legal and getting rid of all foreign civilizing influence on their culture since Alexander the Great. Plus they act like jihadis around all their demon gods. Allying with them is like allying with hoteps - worse, actually, because at least when hoteps speak I don't feel blood dripping out of my ears from such painful accents.

Wolfe Tone powiedział(a):

getting rid of all foreign civilizing influence on their culture since Alexander the Great

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

But if they isolate, that would be good.

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.

It's such a massive coincidence that I was watching this thread a week before the Happening, just because I was bored and sifted through 100 pages or so.

---

Sicko Hunter powiedział(a):

"You know what this article really needs? Several two sentence subsections on irrelevant countries so we can make it look more diverse"

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Isn’t that literally what the different fucking language wikipedias are for? U.S. Wikipedia wouldn’t have a page on some random Indian town but Indian Wikipedia would’ve. Stupid.

Sicko Hunter powiedział(a):

The Tankie editor who helped write the Mao article could not help but include two glowing sentences tucked down near the end of the article.

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

There’s always something so slimy and annoying about someone writing for you. No, not all of Gen Z likes this stupid Chinese fucker, on the contrary even, the west very much does NOT want to be like goddamn China.

Darwin Watterson powiedział(a):

This Hammersoft guy types like a fucking faggot

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

I want to punch him by merely the written word of his, truly an amazing trait.

I wish this guy luck man. Wikipedia unfortunately is extremely relative and important. Conservatives complaining about it and saying don't use it is the entire problem with how everything gets taken over by lefties. They will use it. They did use it.

Do not get me wrong. I get why conservatives say this. I've said it myself! As many folks have said above, the wikipedia rules are like arcane scripture. For someone new to get deep into it would take a deep dedication and immense free time. I've been online since the days of fucking GeoCities and even I got lost trying to use wikipedia from the back with editing and participating in the system. It is not for normies.

It needs to be more accessible. And god I loathe using that word because it's used for everything even video games. But for wikipedia, it is just a fact.

sodomy lifestyle powiedział(a):

Kiwipedia incoming? Surely Null has the bandwidth.

Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

You joke but Null was saying he believed the forum had zero long term room for growth after the Gorl Tawk drama.

I personally think updating News and happenings to have no drama/slur posting wouldn't be a bad idea. As sharing information and primary source videos from happenings in conflicts in other countries will become more difficult as the internet fragments. (Or a separate board to cultivate a little more of a professional friendly space) but a return to form as a wiki may not be the worst idea either.

To pull more users in, I mean.

Don't get me wrong it will still be demonized but having a more professional space may be whats needed to pull just enough people in to engage with the more risqué parts of the site and realize everyone here is just retarded, not malevolent.

But I'm retarded so MMV

Edit: I'm sure he is reluctant to do anything like this because he has so few moderators and already does so much.

But if the forum is to get any bigger we may just have to find our own versions of tranny jannies. Its not easy I know. He constantly has had to find people he doesn't have to tard wrangle 24/7 and fair enough.

But that's why I would suggest a space that is inherently extremely strict with its postings, like a wiki. Something with a less subjective nature to moderator rulings.
I'm sure people will still get butthurt, what are you going to do.