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
Didnt Use Real Email Once powiedział(a):
FYI as of now he's actually banned. (archive)
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
The person who officially banned Larry, "ScottishFinnishRadish" [a], is an administrator of wikiFeet.
I fell for the world's most retarded April Fool's joke. News at 11
1782221463233.png
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Lazy Drei powiedział(a):
All this does is just further convince me that Wikipedia has become nothing but a narrative device for the Left and pseudo intellectuals.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
What ruined it for me was the existence of the narrative building groups. As an example, there was one called the 'skeptic alliance' or something like that. Their mission statement was to vandalize all pages that could be classified as paranormal or conspiracy related. They openly wrote this shit on their wiki profiles. 'I'm a shill and I will do anything to support this narrative' should immediately result in a ban. I remember them being called out for straight up fabricating citations to make their arguments stronger. In one case I think it was even a primary source. These groups are always going to exist given how the internet is, but the fact that they're allowed to operate openly ruins the entire idea. Even psychos like k.e.coffman don't harm it as much. At least they're just obsessed individuals (with complete support from the wiki establishment to ruin articles.)
 
seal powiedział(a):
What ruined it for me was the existence of the narrative building groups. As an example, there was one called the 'skeptic alliance' or something like that. Their mission statement was to vandalize all pages that could be classified as paranormal or conspiracy related. They openly wrote this shit on their wiki profiles. 'I'm a shill and I will do anything to support this narrative' should immediately result in a ban. I remember them being called out for straight up fabricating citations to make their arguments stronger. In one case I think it was even a primary source. These groups are always going to exist given how the internet is, but the fact that they're allowed to operate openly ruins the entire idea. Even psychos like k.e.coffman don't harm it as much. At least they're just obsessed individuals (with complete support from the wiki establishment to ruin articles.)
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Yeah it's genuinely wild to see what types of people lurk on Wikipedia and how they're allowed to so openly go at things.

Even if having people like that is inevitable, doing something sneakily compared to gloating about doing it and going on with it in broad daylight without repercussion is just wild.

You could have an actual professor with years of experience and exceptional knowledge in a specific field tell a Wikipedia moderator or editor that something on there is a blatant lie or wrong, even with loads of evidence backing you up, as long as you don't have the required editor credentials you just got to suck it up, even if you want to spend hours upon hours discussing back and forth with terminally online retards that bend the rules to their needs, there is no guarantee of getting an edit passed.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Another genuinely brilliant thing ruined by ideologically-charged, pseudointellectual, elitist pundits who enjoy nothing more than to turn their hugboxes into hugfortresses for them all to simultaneously claim superiority whilst degrading themselves in their inner circles, and daring to call it 'brave'.

The font of humanity's knowledge, once accessible and neutral, now unreliable on anything contentious or controversial, because some middle-to-upper class wolf in working sheep's clothing (made by independent starving BAME artists, don't you know!) with a million different pins and enough pronouns to write a book decided that no, this is bad, and there is no nuance, no sir, it can only be evil and it should only ever be perceived as such.

These repugnant dolts need defenestrating out of the Overton Window and right back into the radicalism they so claim to fight against.
 
seal powiedział(a):
As an example, there was one called the 'skeptic alliance' or something like that. Their mission statement was to vandalize all pages that could be classified as paranormal or conspiracy related
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
That is how we are probably getting to "narwhals are fictional" someday (try looking that up).

I saw skeptics jump over themselves to "identify" Lascaux Unicorn (even tho it is not really a unicorn),
as there are no unicorns, so perhaps that image is ~telling a story~ or ~depicts a shaman wearing skins~. All because somebody called that depiction of unknown-to-science ungulate, a unicorn, so it is not allowed to be a thing.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
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...
There is nothing more pathetic than a man who bullies like a woman, being all passive aggressive and faggy whilst pretending its not a confrontation. Maybe that's why they keep pretending to be women.

That's what all of these people are. Little wimpy faggots who think themselves above bullying only because they're too weak to do it IRL, so they find an online space to do it whilst pretending they aren't. Bonus points if you get to roleplay like you're some kind of intellectual, as the wikipedos love to do.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Did they finally put „you can only contribute if you’re a tranny, or if you cite tranny source” rule in the open?
 
Haha! Unpaid volunteers that contribute next-to-nothing getting their jabs in on the person who created their job and placed in their position of minor power. Many such cases, HR, automation, jeet replacement.

Wild dogs with no impulse control. Shoot them, put them down. Never take your finger off the trigger, never put your gun down. Larry's a tard for not having a personal backdoor left to him for annihilating such redditors.
 
To anyone who thinks the Internet has gotten significantly worse to the point that it's unrecognizable and unusable, I implore you to consider this solution: please put more women in positions of power. Make them jannies, make them admins. Give them the power to ban and silence you. Even allow transexuals as long as they're the good ones. Women build empires. They run corporations. They keep the wheels of civilization turning. Every internet community has been made better by filling up the moderation squad with women. When you look back on an old website and wonder why it is thriving to this day, that is why. That is always why.

If you disagree you're an incel. Fuck you. Please more feminine snark online! It's the only thing that will save us!!
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
I haven't trusted Wikipedia since I learned my local university hosted edit parties, where undergrads who haven't yet finished their degrees all sipped kambucha and rewrote articles to call anyone they disagreed with chuds. Hive of Dunning-Kreuger.
 
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?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
It's exactly like the reddit brigading rules. People expressing conservative opinions en masse is brigading, needs to be shut down asap. But if troons boost troon content in your small sub until it's 10x the next nearest post, that's just people showing support.

He should have simply made a series of discords and quietly brought in his own people, duh 🙄 openly debating is chuddy
 
Propaganda was never an issue. It's far better that anyone trying to sell you an idea be upfront with their intentions. Websites like Wikipedia which are subversive with plausible deniability are the most insidious and dangerous types.

Claims of neutrality should require strict regulations to get certified as such. Otherwise There really should be a requirement for parisian businesses to make it very clear to their users.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Didnt Use Real Email Once powiedział(a):
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.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Lets see who reblocked him.
Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 00.24.51.png

Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 00.25.53.png

Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 00.27.12.png

Admin application in 2022 - so we have an admin of 4 years long banning one of the co-founders of wikipedia.
As for the linked discussion - well here it is in full - been trying to archive but it's gone to shit and can't access it, so if others can do it, all the better. The summary of the reason why he is rebanned is here.
Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 00.34.52.png
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole