Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General

  • 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
Screenshot 2026-03-05 2.51.38 AM.png

Thanks Wikipedia, I did not want to know that.
 
Vriljami said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Republicans (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/iwwVv)
Click to expand...
The YR leaked chats scandal was the biggest nothingburger. A few edgy jokes were treated as seriously held opinions.

Some reporting seemed deliberately obtuse, as though the journalist knew better but was hoping to trick the reader. E.g., this oft-cited exchange:

> He did say "My delegates I bring will vote for the most right wing person"
> Great. I love Hitler.

Young Republicans admit they love Hitler! Of course, it's an obvious joke about who "the most right wing person" would be.

Wikipedia article with expected slant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Republican_group_chat_leaks
ETA: Also, articles for individuals in this Telegram group are dominated by this fake scandal.
 
Last edited:
For whatever reason, wikipedia pages on CCP Chinese political figures now have page numbers next to citations. No where else does Wikipedia do that that I can find.

Screenshot 2026-03-05 161225.png Screenshot 2026-03-05 161355.png

Two different articles. Overly zealous soooourcers or CCP apologists wanting to make everything extra professional?
 
Danann said:
They need to abide by fair use. They dont want to pay people and corps money to use actually good photos for their articles because that would make them sell outs...as if all this political leaning isnt a sell out itself
Click to expand...

If they paid for picture they could at least justify their grifting. The reason they don't is cause paying for them would cut into the NGO money for trannies in Europe and LGBT shit in Africa among other shit.
 
Danann said:
They need to abide by fair use. They dont want to pay people and corps money to use actually good photos for their articles because that would make them sell outs...as if all this political leaning isnt a sell out itself
Click to expand...
Even paying to license stuff without full permission invites a lawsuit if the actual copyright owner goes bankrupt or sells it off. Kind of like how the picture for the original SCP-173 had permission to be used but it was revoked when they violated the noncommercial use of it. Imagine that but on a Wikipedia-sized level.

I also think they sometimes take revenge on someone by putting up the shittiest picture they can find if they turned down permission. They're petty little bitches over there.
 
Corpun said:
For whatever reason, wikipedia pages on CCP Chinese political figures now have page numbers next to citations. No where else does Wikipedia do that that I can find.

View attachment 8658586View attachment 8658587

Two different articles. Overly zealous soooourcers or CCP apologists wanting to make everything extra professional?
Click to expand...
Actually they do this on a couple of pages. Wikipedia has kinda non uniform citation style.

for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Rebellion
 
AnOminous said:
Kind of like how the picture for the original SCP-173 had permission to be used but it was revoked when they violated the noncommercial use of it
Click to expand...
I still find it absurdly idiotic how the site decided to try turning a profit off its content even knowing that they were going against copyright from the day Peanut received an article.
 
WhiteNight said:
They also do it a few times on this article:
en.wikipedia.org

Kiwi Farms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Still have no idea how this isn't libel. They not only say the site was "linked" to the shooter (Josh hosted the video there was no actual connection to the shooting itself) and then imply he was a poster on the forum which to my knowledge he never was. The implication is Josh had some involvement with the massacre of 60 people and that he was a user of the forum. Neither are true.
1772838795801.png
 
Sicko Hunter said:
Still have no idea how this isn't libel. They not only say the site was "linked" to the shooter (Josh hosted the video there was no actual connection to the shooting itself) and then imply he was a poster on the forum which to my knowledge he never was. The implication is Josh had some involvement with the massacre of 60 people and that he was a user of the forum. Neither are true.
View attachment 8664053
Click to expand...
It’s clearly documented that he made his post on 8chan’s version of /pol/, we already knew this on the same day of the attacks. I don’t know how there’s even confusion about this from people, is this libel or just plain stupidity? Also, the New Zealand police demanded all the information on all of the posters in that happening thread (including me), not Tarrant’s non-existent KF posts on his non-existent KF account. This is some of the most ridiculous and flimsy slander ever.
 
Wikipedia gets away with it by saying they are just reporting on what "trusted sources" said. They then at the same time ban people from doing their own research and posting proof otherwise from primary sources.
 
General Emílio Médici said:
Wikipedia gets away with it by saying they are just reporting on what "trusted sources" said. They then at the same time ban people from doing their own research and posting proof otherwise from primary sources.
Click to expand...
In other words, Wikipedia being totally biased as usual.
 
Wikipedia believes that their ass is covered because at the bottom of every article, if you look hard, you can find a link that says "Disclaimers", which takes you to a page which explains that Wikipedia is user-contributed so nothing on it should be trusted:


Probably they're right. I'm sure they have a team of lawyers affirming that this gives them all the deniability they need, due to Section 230 or whatever.
 
WhiteNight said:
Wikipedia believes that their ass is covered because at the bottom of every article, if you look hard, you can find a link that says "Disclaimers", which takes you to a page which explains that Wikipedia is user-contributed so nothing on it should be trusted:


Probably they're right. I'm sure they have a team of lawyers affirming that this gives them all the deniability they need, due to Section 230 or whatever.
Click to expand...
...now I'm suddenly wanting to know what would happen to most of the internet if Section 230 actually does get repealed, as while social media will die and so will places like here, places like Google and Wikipedia might suddenly find themselves in a whole lot of trouble once they are suddenly required to be relied on for correct info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom