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
Wyróżnienie
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.
 
Harm powiedział(a):
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...
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.
 
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...
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.
1782199483698.png
 
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.
 
Harm powiedział(a):
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.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
What you describe is not just the state of Wikipedia, but the state of liberal democracy in general.
 
It's frustrating that critical online infrastructure is invariably controlled by people who would be bullied out of any position of power in real life. Bullying is society's only defense against narcissists and BPD nuts. That's why the left is so prone to takeover by insane people– they're the party of women, so they're anti-bullying. The only thing I could even imagine having an impact is a phonebooking database of Wikipedia powermods. But even then, it's hard to be mean to internet strangers in a way that sticks. They can just block you.

Maybe it's a good thing. Stuff like this makes me want to connect with people more in real life, where at least I can call narcissists ugly or dumb or whatever to drive them from my community. I've never felt powerless in a face to face interaction the way I do reading some psychotic call Larry a sexist for referring to his critics as "soccer moms" by hyperlinking some rules document no one has fucking read.
 
LMlurker powiedział(a):
Bullying is society's only defense against narcissists and BPD nuts.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
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."
 
General WP editor, especially on political articles, is a pathetic person who has to rely on extreme bureaucracy. I remember I wrote an article, which was called "bizarre" by some random who never actually edited anything and simply worked on administration. Completely useless editor who contributed nothing, but at least he could LARP as some powerful person
 
Its amusing that we have watched countless internet communities, forums, and sites speedrun this template of devolution into gatekeeping, consensus, and process as punishment beauraucracy as jannies get power tripped and ideologically corralled into some amorphous blob of impenetrable bullshit.

Its seems to parallel a lot of irl institutions, but seems so much more plainly obvious when laid out on the screen. We should be more aware of this and develop countermeasures. Not sure there's many examples to lean on, mind.
 
Smithfield Ham powiedział(a):
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."
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
By bullying I mean calling people fat and retarded, not what these people do. They can't hold up to it, it's why they hate this site so much
 
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...
It's also great fun, I've used it in the past (before the AI summaries) to make the summaries for certain results entertaining/more "accurate" (and no, still not "fixed").
Wikipedia is easily gameable as long as you spend the time and effort, it's too bad the worst people with time to spare on wikipedia games outnumber the sane ones, especially on important topics.
 
Smithfield Ham powiedział(a):
It's almost like giving a single database a monopoly on truth and authority was always a bad idea and would attract bad actors.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I remember my HS teachers telling me Wikipedia is a good source to find sources, which is no longer true for a while now, every source is cherry picked or designated 'wrong' by one of their own if it doesn't fit.

The whole base of rules about which sources are considered 'credible' was randomly made up by an unknown individual years ago and has been adhered to ever since with minimal changes, which means it will always be a biased list of 'legitimate' sources, maybe someone else can explain it in more detail but I remember it's very sketchy.
 
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...
But doing this to give trannies an outsized control of discourse is perfectly fine.
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole