They haven't (yet). I was making a joke.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia -
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
-
Sister services, email, and search will continue to be negatively effected by the attacks. I made a thread to talk about it, if you're into networking.
- Highlight
- #2,423
This is the kind of aut hyperspecificity that wikipedo needs, not retarded whinging about a billion genders and race relations. At least this is fun.
Anti-Barney humor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Strange Wilderness
kiwifarms.net
As autistic as this page is it used to be worse. I remember back in the day when they included every Barney parody under the sun and all the dumb anti-Barney songs kids used to sing on playgrounds. The page now is "that awkward but nice guy at the office" when it once was "the guy who prances around in his fursuit and makes out with a rainbow dash stuffed animal".Did this really need its own article?Anti-Barney humor - Wikipedia
Damn Chris came so close to having his name on Wikipedia.
Also props to Wikipedia for including this gem:
NynchLiggers
kiwifarms.net
Did this really need its own article?Anti-Barney humor - Wikipedia
Minor dumb shit. It's almost shit that it is dumb that it isn't on Wikipedia. As with every vehicle, they have an article on the Jeep Wrangler. This is a vehicle mostly known for its propensity for flipping if you sneeze while driving it.
It contains this line:
"The YJ still had leaf spring suspension similar to that of the CJ – however, the springs were wider, and the first Wrangler sported trackbar suspension links and anti-roll bars for improved handling and safety, making it less easy to flip by untrained or unwary drivers."
So how is this statement remotely intelligible? The article mentions rolling over or flipping nowhere else. So why would it be "less easy to flip" if it weren't already easy to flip? And if one of the main characteristics of the vehicle, as known to normal people, is don't buy this shit because it flips over, why try to hide that fact?
I suppose it could just be terrible writing-by-committee, as wikipedos usually do. I still almost suspect they have shill edits covering up most of this shit, but really incompetent shills, because otherwise, it wouldn't even have the word "flip" in it, even though "Jeep Wrangler" is more or less synonymous with "flip" to normal people.
If you control the "encyclopedia," though, I guess that won't be its legacy. It will be the most unflippable, perfectly reliable vehicle of all time, as said by Suetonius. Or whatever fake historian writes vehicular history.
It contains this line:
"The YJ still had leaf spring suspension similar to that of the CJ – however, the springs were wider, and the first Wrangler sported trackbar suspension links and anti-roll bars for improved handling and safety, making it less easy to flip by untrained or unwary drivers."
So how is this statement remotely intelligible? The article mentions rolling over or flipping nowhere else. So why would it be "less easy to flip" if it weren't already easy to flip? And if one of the main characteristics of the vehicle, as known to normal people, is don't buy this shit because it flips over, why try to hide that fact?
I suppose it could just be terrible writing-by-committee, as wikipedos usually do. I still almost suspect they have shill edits covering up most of this shit, but really incompetent shills, because otherwise, it wouldn't even have the word "flip" in it, even though "Jeep Wrangler" is more or less synonymous with "flip" to normal people.
If you control the "encyclopedia," though, I guess that won't be its legacy. It will be the most unflippable, perfectly reliable vehicle of all time, as said by Suetonius. Or whatever fake historian writes vehicular history.
No mention of Calvinball? Philistines!
Wikipedos are arguing about how there's no evidence this byuu fag is even dead, but they want to rules lawyer to justify accusing the Farms of being super guilty of mega murder anyway.
Hadn't he claimed he was no longer nonbinary? They're misgendering him.
None of the articles reported on that, so I guess respecting his actual gender would be against WP:No Original Research.
Was looking up Macauley Culkin after he showed up on RedLetterMedia to try to figure out how he’s managed to be better adjusted than Wil Wheaton.
And came across this on his page:
Solid burn. But the fact that it’s somehow considered “notable” enough to appear on Wikipedia is already sad, the fact someone wrote an entire article for that is sadder.
And came across this on his page:
Solid burn. But the fact that it’s somehow considered “notable” enough to appear on Wikipedia is already sad, the fact someone wrote an entire article for that is sadder.
But what makes it dumber is that linking directly to the threads counts as "original research," even though it would be one of the more accurate things to do, at this point.
BootlegPopeye
kiwifarms.net
That's the thing about Wikipedia, almost all of it is original research. When they pick and choose what to plagiarize from - be it a news site, glorified SPLC fundraising letter, or left wing blog - they are performing the original research that the rules supposedly prevent. All of those are being subject to the 'wiki' interpretation like an original research editor would do.
Well, what makes it stupid is that they're arguing over which news site to cite...When there's hardly an abundance to pick from.
The Ivermectin wikipedia page (Archive) is being run as the personal fiefdom of a guy called Alexbrn(Archive). Not only is he adamant in retaining his edit privileges over the page, but he becomes incredibly snarky and aggressive about anyone who dares to cite studies disproving his opinion on the drug's effectiveness.
He goes so far as to say that citing studies in medical journals falls afoul of Wikipedia's original research policy.
If you're willing to put up with his tone for the entire length, there are over 10 sub-headings of talk page antics where he wields his janny powers and the art of pilpul against hapless wikipedos even as the NIH, WHO, and Oxford have begun major Ivermectin trials based on the results shown abroad.
He goes so far as to say that citing studies in medical journals falls afoul of Wikipedia's original research policy.
If you're willing to put up with his tone for the entire length, there are over 10 sub-headings of talk page antics where he wields his janny powers and the art of pilpul against hapless wikipedos even as the NIH, WHO, and Oxford have begun major Ivermectin trials based on the results shown abroad.
-
- Tags
- wikipedia
Similar threads
Long Term Abuse and Arbitration Committee pages, Major Gamergate Battleground
- Sticky
General Discussion Thread
