Dumb Shit on Wikipedia -

mickey339

*screams in clingy fur ball*
kiwifarms.net
Dumbfounded this article is still up.

1631651164105.png
 

JJLiautaud

kiwifarms.net
Because it's allegedly an encyclopedia, not just a garbage dump for random bullshit.
Yeah but then you get power jannies screeching about how x topic like German winners of the Iron Cross with Oak leaves isnt encyclopedic content and deleting them and thats just on the face of it retarded, my opinion is if something is written in an encyclopedic tone and sourced then it should be included and the first steps before even considering deletion is to see if it can be rewritten.
 

Josterman

kiwifarms.net
I'm beating on a dead horse at this point, but to think, "Kadie Karen Diekmeyer", aka "That Vegan Teacher", the "controversial vegan activist" still has a Wikipedia page while Chris (and other people) don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Vegan_Teacher

IIRC, her page was under review for deletion earlier this year, but the boneheads on Wikipedia decided that her page could stay. Their decision was partly because she made headlines for spelling out the word "nigger" in a YouTube video around the time discussion was happening.
View attachment 2453632
She would make a great lolcow
GorillaWarfare strikes again.
View attachment 2466642
she deserved the ire and attacks she got from lolcow bill Palmer the Palmer report
 

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
I really wonder what the reaction would be if they tried to apply that notability standard evenly (of course it doesn't apply to characters from Rick and Morty or My Little Pony) to Medal of Honor winners as I said earlier, but it may be the English language bias of Wikipedia showing because there will be at least some Google Book reference that Wikipedos can look up to at least have a basic biography on the MOH winners.

Notability should be obvious and it shouldn't be controversial, nor should it depend on the whim of whatever 'activist' has the most time to waste on camping pages.
Some of the information removed is just bizarre. Like here our censorious cat lady blanks half the article on this random Kriegsmarine admiral. Apparently Wikipedia policy makes any and all generals/admirals of major countries like Germany notable, but apparently not notable enough that his page needs information like his place of birth/death or ships he served on. The other excuse censorious cat lady uses is "sources cited fail the reliable sources policy" which is abject nonsense.

Like this whole debate is because articles were citing Franz Kurowski's books or similar sources which exaggerate the achievements and deeds of the Wehrmacht/SS, but Wikipedia itself quotes a historian saying of Kurowski that "much of the data is correct: names, places, ships sunk and medals won." It's just pure nonsense from the perspective of how history works and it's obvious that woman has no training or interest in the field, merely an interest in using Wikipedia's bloated bureaucracy to advance her political agenda.
 

NerdShamer

International Glownigger Commander
kiwifarms.net

BootlegPopeye

kiwifarms.net
So, what's the motive here, aside from the "Nazis are bad!" angle?
From what I could tell from going through some of the relevant discussion, it's that under the guise of 'muh reliable sources'. Political activism in the guise of some kind of source absolutist.
She doesn't consider any author remotely not anti-nazi enough to be 'reliable'. She doesn't seem that knowledgeable about military matters either. The blanking of major general officers articles is pretty unforgivable; I'd argue that if they hit that rank that alone makes them notable. Hopefully, that puff piece article will give her enough publicity to the people who maybe ignored her and will see what a menace people like her are to any encyclopedia.
 

Pickle Dick

YOU GET WHAT YOU F--KIN' DESERVE!
kiwifarms.net

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Yeah but then you get power jannies screeching about how x topic like German winners of the Iron Cross with Oak leaves isnt encyclopedic content and deleting them and thats just on the face of it retarded, my opinion is if something is written in an encyclopedic tone and sourced then it should be included and the first steps before even considering deletion is to see if it can be rewritten.
Lists like that almost always have reliable sources. I think utter garbage should be deleted, though, like articles on John Walker Flynt. People are not notable for just chopping their dicks off, especially when there isn't even a source to confirm that such a person as "Brianna Wu" even exists at all.
 

Corpun

Keeper of the Kawaii Avatars
kiwifarms.net
I know we have already talked to death about horrendous profile pictures used in Wikipedia, but I think this one takes the cake.


View attachment 2538993

It's a photograph taken from a video at an oblique angle.
If we don't need literal who German Tank Aces do we really need literal who Injuns heya hoying over a pipeline? Then again that ancient bitch no one ever heard of who shilled for Juneteenth to be a federal holiday got one the day Biden made it one.


Feel free to peruse these, I'm honestly too tired to look for particular bouts of autism but they are certainly there.


Curious how every election in this list has either a small blurb or no blurb at all until you get to the 2016 Election and 2020 Election in the US, then you have wikispergs going all out.
 

Toolbox

Buy dat hell
kiwifarms.net

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
From what I could tell from going through some of the relevant discussion, it's that under the guise of 'muh reliable sources'. Political activism in the guise of some kind of source absolutist.
She doesn't consider any author remotely not anti-nazi enough to be 'reliable'. She doesn't seem that knowledgeable about military matters either. The blanking of major general officers articles is pretty unforgivable; I'd argue that if they hit that rank that alone makes them notable. Hopefully, that puff piece article will give her enough publicity to the people who maybe ignored her and will see what a menace people like her are to any encyclopedia.
"Source absolutism" is how activists get to vandalize Wikipedia, since most far-left sources are deemed acceptable (except for literal communist websites like the World Socialist Website since they hate the establishment/globalist left) while anything right of center like Daily Mail is banned.

That cat lady has done a lot of damage, but appears to be kept in check by policies that are permitting articles on most Nazi generals/admirals to remain, even if they aren't allowed to have any information. I can't find a single instance where any article on an obscure 1-star general has been deleted, aside from those on people who the sources aren't sure were actually promoted or not (which might be because IIRC Germany in both world wars never did acting officers like the US or Britain did). The articles that really suffer are those on random U-Boat captains, tank commanders, and fighter aces.
 

BootlegPopeye

kiwifarms.net
"Source absolutism" is how activists get to vandalize Wikipedia, since most far-left sources are deemed acceptable (except for literal communist websites like the World Socialist Website since they hate the establishment/globalist left) while anything right of center like Daily Mail is banned.

There is another way they do it; the ridiculous standard of 'Google hits' as the yard stick of notability, which is why Wikipedia has entries for idiotic, forgotten memes from 2012, long dead blogs from the Bush years, hair on fire TDS stories, among many others - while neglectful of historical events and figures that don't interest Wiki nerds as much (they call this 'wiki groaning' and guess what Wikipedos, it's a legit complaint about your pseudo encyclopedia).
 
Top