Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • 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
Mound Dweller said:
the input isn't everything
Click to expand...
It literally is though

Mound Dweller said:
honey is made of bee vomit.
Click to expand...
The bees are going out of their way to manufacture food. Sources: try making honey out of any kind of actual vomit

Mound Dweller said:
I'm :optimistic: because competition can only be a good thing
Click to expand...
Here's how this could be a good thing: Other people could replicate this concept to produce competing info repositories and actually compete. Musk is not going to 'compete' with anything he is imo likely to effortlessly rape and murder wikipedia (which is a massive piece of crap with no ability to adapt to this new threat) and take its place.
 
At least Grok knows what a fucking woman is

1761696370913.png

but it needs help sometimes
1761696536238.png
 
Toilet seats vendor said:
Anyways, Wikipedos don't disappoint, and not only are they already seething about "misinformation", they cry about the topics you'd most expect them to cry about.
Click to expand...
I wonder what they would say if they were told about Jimbo Wales numerous attempts at replacing wikipedia with anything and everything. Veropedia was probably a great idea all things considered.

Wikipedia has several structural deficiencies that mean it will never be a good or great source for encyclopedic information, outside of niche STEM subjects that don't require a coherent narrative or editor to both revise and synthesize the various new sources that come along, into a valid entry that stays on topic, correct, and not rambling.

Drive-by lazy editing like. a article could have a really amazing first entry but it's pretty much all downhill from there, at least from a holistic quality perspective, come back 4 years later and the article end is a litany of lines saying 'In 2019, so and so happened' then 'In 2020 yada-ya', instead of making a proper insertion into the main body of the article. In many cases, articles written by laymen or heavily edited by them will inevitably include information that isn't particularly credible or useful. Bureaucratic fucks will insert themselves into some form of guardianship over articles by editlocking the article as a means of controlling the narrative, this happened very conspicuously with the Reddit admin that got hired years ago that was neckdeep in pedoshit. It's easy for them to bury truth by citing some obscure WP rules to level the playing field, and they usually carry the day.

But do you know what about Wikipedia really pisses me off?
It's the fucking retarded front page factoids that have over time become completely pozzed and are legitimately terrible.

Like consider the goofy addition here:

"Did you know that the SWAT unit in Regina recruited their first female officer from the Regina Police Service in May 1991?"
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is genuinely pretending a Canadian city's police force SWAT team hiring policies are interesting. The significance of this is lost on most readers who don't care particularly about DEI policies in police forces, I'd honestly be interested to know more about the individual in question more than anything these retards wrote down but the performative fact-finding is just tiresome.
 
Last edited:
How does one create a new article through Grokipedia, because I tried to search up HBO's OZ as a test and there isn't a page.
 
I took a look on some normie places and a lot of reflexive hate towards GrokPedia that is pretty funny. I am willing to be 90% of the comments I saw didn't even check it ONCE because they didn't seem to even understand that it is a Grok terminal that looks shit up and makes a article, they think it is literally a wikipedia copy just made by "Elon friendly sources".

One retard said it "downplayed Hitler' s actions" and I have no idea what the fuck that even meant because it was a lone comment without any context. Did they mean Hitler's article was too nice to him? WW2? Holobunga article? What the fuck does that mean?

Also amazing seeing a lot of people reflexively glazing wikipedia and demanding people donate to it. Or refusing to accept anything in it could be biased. It really is some "If he is against it I love it" shit. Just pure partisan politics. It's a fucking jeet coded chatbot.
 
General Emílio Médici said:
normie places
Click to expand...
Ask yourself why a "normie", the correct non astroturfed term being normal faggot, as in a person that has neither a stake in the game of information warfare nor really cares, would comment on such an issue? I bet that the majority of those comments are from people with a stake in the game, be it as "classic" propagandists, like journalists, or one of the 10% of the US population being employed by a subsidized NPO/NGO or one of the 35% of the US population being employed by the "public", of which looking at the last +-50 years of reign by the unity party the majority are either RINO or democrat appointed. a normal faggot really doesn't care, that is why they are called normal faggots
 
Can anybody smarter than me determine why somebody seems to be having a fit over the "Western world" article?


It's currently hidden because of some sort of copyright violation. I looked at the edit history to determine what that violation is supposed to be and it seems like a part of a video or something. Nobody is talking about it on the talk page.
 
Autistic man talks about crazy wiki jannies:

I miss the old internet when people where just bat shit insane and not also troons
 
Dendyy said:
Muslims are both dumb and used to getting their way all the time. Little did this goatfucker know, but you can't behead people over the internet.
Click to expand...
It's not all their fault.

They are more inbred than Hollywood southerners.
 
I somehow ended up on the Soldier of Fortune (magazine) page today and the fact that the majority of the history section is more about the Rhodesian Bush War than the magazine itself is pretty fucking funny, but this line in particular made me ponder how wikipedophiles would feel if it was about the brown populations we're suffering in the U.K. or the states instead.
Screenshot 2025-11-03 012538.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom