Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General
LOL both options are kind of the same - only difference is that when AI gives you muddy information, you can ask it to give you a specific source, like a scientific journal entry, and you can go read it yourself. While Wikipedos can use off-hand quotes and opinions pieces as sources, therefore the information is not objective by design.
You need a mix of both to get actual good information wikijews also never document stuff that matters unless some faggot writes an article on it(and not from infowars or fox news because chud!).
You need a mix of both to get actual good information wikijews also never document stuff that matters unless some faggot writes an article on it(and not from infowars or fox news because chud!).
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.
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.
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.
This, and I think it has been true since 2020. If there's a current thing everyone blindly trusts it's chat gpt and that's infinitely better than wikipedia because it will engage with your specific nuances. If you ask it in the simplest of terms it will say "yes racism is real and bad" but if you ask it "does that mean i should hate myself for being white?" it will say no absolutely not. Wiki, reddit, and the like leave that second part implied but intentionally vague, and in some cases just outright say "yes you should".
If you lay out deep thoughts about why you think identity politics are bad, or lead to more racism, LLMs will not shame you for asking and more often than not they'll tell you your reasoning is sound, it's just a complicated debate. That gives you freedom to think and come to your own conclusion which is a trillion times better than what we've had the past 10 years on reddit and wiki.
Basically LLMs are just a quicker, more reliable, and more efficient way to search what wikipedia used to do. They certainly aren't perfect but every flaw they have was 10 times more severe in wikipedia even during its golden years.
Sanger getting banned from Wikipedia is total bullshit that just goes to show how far that site has fallen. I can't believe I ever contributed to that tranny-run shithole.
That's just the start of it. If you look at what sources they consider "reliable" it's even worse. Not only are they almost all left-leaning, but they also don't allow you to cite primary sources. All the information on there is basically required to have first been run through a left-wing opinion filter.
And even when you do cite "reliable secondary sources" they often still find ways to revert or change your edit. No matter what you do you can get outcucked by some degen who spends every waking moment on that site and knows every nitpick possible to get your edits removed. And if you wanna fight that you have to go through a lengthy discussion and report process & even if you succeed its just not worth it, so the only editors that remain long term are the clinically insane and ideologically obsessed
And even when you do cite "reliable secondary sources" they often still find ways to revert or change your edit. No matter what you do you can get outcucked by some degen who spends every waking moment on that site and knows every nitpick possible to get your edits removed. And if you wanna fight that you have to go through a lengthy discussion and report process & even if you succeed its just not worth it, so the only editors that remain long term are the clinically insane and ideologically obsessed
The usage of "reliable secondary sources" is also highly article specific.
There's plenty of articles that cite primary sources, or just no sources, but because they have a band of roving retards watching the page any attempts at fixing the article is immediately reverted.
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."
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.
This, and I think it has been true since 2020. If there's a current thing everyone blindly trusts it's chat gpt and that's infinitely better than wikipedia because it will engage with your specific nuances. If you ask it in the simplest of terms it will say "yes racism is real and bad" but if you ask it "does that mean i should hate myself for being white?" it will say no absolutely not. Wiki, reddit, and the like leave that second part implied but intentionally vague, and in some cases just outright say "yes you should".
The usage of "reliable secondary sources" is also highly article specific.
There's plenty of articles that cite primary sources, or just no sources, but because they have a band of roving retards watching the page any attempts at fixing the article is immediately reverted.
Remember once I edited while logged out of my main account, using an IP or temp account to remove fake content that obviously broke one of their supposed rules, but was immediately reverted by one of those guys using automated tools for everything. Ask them why and they always say "bring it up on the talk page and gain consensus". I don't think anyone could come up with a system that's easier to game and control wide swathes of article content with just a few like minded people. It's interesting that the number of new editors a month is declining but active editors is fairly stable
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.
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.
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.
Isn't this just basically institutional capture? For the past 10 years, we have seen a dedicated effort of leftists and left-leaning people pushing out and exile anyone who has wrongthink or is too rightwing. From Wikipedia to academia and Ivy Leagues to corporate jobs. Back in Gamergate, you had deranged "feminists" calling workplaces to have someone fired if they have negative feelings about feminism. They use cancel culture as a weapon to destroy the lives of their political enemies and make sure these institutions bend to their will. The only reason Larry Sanger hasn't been banned by those dipshits a lot sooner is because he's the co-founder. And when they found out that he tried to change the culture of Wikipedia to be less leftwing, they immediately close ranks, circle their wagons and attack him. This is the usual tactics that leftists, or even liberals and neocons, use to gatekeep anyone on the right from accessing their power.
The model of "liberal democracy" we have today is completely a by-product of Karl Popper's the Open Society, which itself was a type of re-education camp after WW2 to foster the post-war consensus. But I don't think liberal hegemony is as all-encompassing as we think it is. The Palestine/Israel war has created a rift between the libs in charge and the far left. The shitlibs and leftists aren't necessarily friends, they just choose to form an alliance to fight the right.
Basically LLMs are just a quicker, more reliable, and more efficient way to search what wikipedia used to do. They certainly aren't perfect but every flaw they have was 10 times more severe in wikipedia even during its golden years.
I see a lot of people clown on Wikipedia for being dumb and biased (deservedly so) but in about 10 to 15 years, Wikipedia will garner a prestige as the easy-to-access info hub, younger generations like Gen Alpha will be more likely to read Wikipedia and other popular secondary sources than they would bother to look for the primary source. LLMs will either be regulated to death or get ideological capture by the same people that ruined Wikipedia.
The limousine Left are the inheritors of Roosevelt's managerial Ponzi schemes and are fabulously rich and powerful because of them. They think of the Left fascists as inferiors but also useful subordinates replacing the function of the KKK. As for the Left fascists, they would happily line Democrats up against walls and slaughter them. This has gotten worse as Left fascist ideology has moved increasingly closer to National Socialism.
Larry Sanger states that Wikipedia is now a faceless mob and not an aggregation of independent, responsible individuals [who are] guided by rational rules and a well thought-out procedure that equally applies to all".
lmao. my guy calls himself a philosopher and it took him this long to figure out that ad hoc online societies - get this - don't operate on pure emotionless logic, and don't apply the rules equally to everyone. fucking incredible. next you'll tell me the free market, isn't actually free...............
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.
