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
Funny how as soon as it became clear that the term largely applied to the left, not the right, it took only two years for it to turn from a brave and stunning progressive term into a "controversial, conservative" one.
Their thought leaders were accurately maligned as "limousine liberals" 30 years ago, and they are still going to tell you how not mad they are about it on the Talk page.

View attachment 8704870
To be fair, this has enough likeness that you’d recognize him 10/10 times. Like they used the copyrighted foto and made an AI make a “sketched” version.
Oh no, why is the default player model from Pro Evolution Soccer on trial?
 
View attachment 8704935

Ah yes, the guy who made this abomination that had nothing to do with the original plans for a theater in Concepción:
View attachment 8704303View attachment 8704304
(I've seen it IRL and it's horrendous, even fuglier than the abandoned 27F monument nearby)
Gets a prestigious prize that "honors a living architect or architects whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision and commitment which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture."
At least it is better looking than the Dresden War Museum. Shit looks like it came right from Half-Life 2.
museum-of-military-history-daniel-libeskind-deconstructivism_dezeen_2364_col_14.jpg
 
At least it is better looking than the Dresden War Museum. Shit looks like it came right from Half-Life 2.
View attachment 8705242
I don’t know why, but I don’t mind that a museum dedicated to WW2 looks like that.

Surely not because I see the tumorous growth to that classic building and my mind immediately goes “That looks like the exact angle”.

IMG_5423.jpeg

Legit only had to shrink it. 0 rotation.
 
Last edited:
Was that Nazi Party really "far-right"?
Not really. All over Europe you had donut steel fascist homegrown parties who made Nathzees look like squeamish moderates. National Socialism was the cool progressive ideology of the time, you had them in places like Dominicana where the average citizen was coal-black. What the Japanese done in Nanjing made the local Nazi diplomats call uncle etc.
 
Wikipedia only allows leftist sources to be used. There’s not one right wing source they consider reliable.
Wrong. Wikipedia allows conservative sources like, "checks notes," uh, The Wall Street Journal and The National Review. Just because the only conservative sources Wikipedia allows oppose Trump doesn't mean Wikipedia has a liberal anti-Trump bias.
 

Outside of noting that UN has designated it as a terrorist group and quotes, Wikipedia doesn't refer to ISIS as a terrorist group in the so called wiki-voice. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia is pro-ISIS but it is a bit silly. Do a control+F on the page for fun.
Pretty standard for any 'terrorist group' since there's no single standard defintion of terrorist under international law, or even domestic law (each agency in the US has their own defintion and standard for terrorism for example). So who is and isn't a terrorist, which group is and isn't a terrorist is very fluid. Also the US is allied to former terrorist all the time, like US backed leader of Syria was former Al-Qaeda and ISIS. 'Terrorist' is really just a politcal accusuation to signal that 'group X' or 'person x' is the enemy for whoever gives them that title, and not some set in stone identity
 
Pretty standard for any 'terrorist group' since there's no single standard defintion of terrorist under international law, or even domestic law (each agency in the US has their own defintion and standard for terrorism for example). So who is and isn't a terrorist, which group is and isn't a terrorist is very fluid. Also the US is allied to former terrorist all the time, like US backed leader of Syria was former Al-Qaeda and ISIS. 'Terrorist' is really just a politcal accusuation to signal that 'group X' or 'person x' is the enemy for whoever gives them that title, and not some set in stone identity
If you cant call ISIS a terrorist group, you might just as well remove the word from dictionary.
 
"Part of a series on Democratic backsliding in the United States during the second Trump administration"​

- Wikipedia on "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act"

FFS.
 
"Part of a series on Democratic backsliding in the United States during the second Trump administration"​

- Wikipedia on "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act"

FFS.
I said this in another thread but when you hear libs drone on and on about "our democracy" all that means is "democratic control of the country". "Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy" means "Donald Trump is a threat to democratic control of America". They think Donald Trump is a king because the "democracy" (them winning) they support failed.
 
Last edited:
"Part of a series on Democratic backsliding in the United States during the second Trump administration"
Here's the infobox template:
You can view all the articles that transclude it here:
Currently 93 articles.

However, when I click on "a series" in the title of the infobox, it takes me to Category:Immigration policy of Donald Trump. These geniuses linked the wrong thing. This is not a recent vandalism edit either; it's been that way since the template was created. It looks like it was copied and pasted from another template without updating the link.
 
The doublethink on voter security in the USA when literal 3rd world shitholes like Brazil and India have Voter ID will never not be funny.
As someone NOT from the USA, do they even have some sort of barebones checks at all?

Here in Australia you have to get your name "signed off" on a book, but they never check your ID. It's pretty weaksauce but kind of gets the job done. Maybe. Sometimes.

Are you telling me the US doesn't even have that?
 
As someone NOT from the USA, do they even have some sort of barebones checks at all?

Here in Australia you have to get your name "signed off" on a book, but they never check your ID. It's pretty weaksauce but kind of gets the job done. Maybe. Sometimes.

Are you telling me the US doesn't even have that?
We typically do and SHOULD have these checks, at least when I've voted. In my area they do ask for ID. A lot of states apparently don't.
 
We typically do and SHOULD have these checks, at least when I've voted. In my area they do ask for ID. A lot of states apparently don't.
Funny how the states that don't ID tend to be the ones that are either solid-blue strongholds like Cali, NY, and Minnesota, or dem-leaning swing states like Pennsylvania. I'm certain the lack of ID laws and ease of ballot harvesting have nothing to do with DNC dominance in those states.
 
Funny how the states that don't ID tend to be the ones that are either solid-blue strongholds like Cali, NY, and Minnesota, or dem-leaning swing states like Pennsylvania. I'm certain the lack of ID laws and ease of ballot harvesting have nothing to do with DNC dominance in those states.
Not once in any election in PA have I been even asked to present voter ID or proof of citizenship, much less been required to have it on me. That fucking slip of paper proving I have the right to vote just sits in my wallet waiting to be used one day.
 
The fact that if I go to a bar right now order drinks and refuse to show my ID I will either be refused service or even kicked out but I can vote without ever showing it is legitimately insane. And we all know why its like this. The purpose is to help democrats steal elections that's always been the case. This is something that should have been addressed years ago. It only exists to help democrats.
 
Back
Top Bottom