Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General
As an example of how shitty Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia: History of Medicine.
Overall, the length and detail written into every paragraph is all over the place. The size of sections are seemingly determined at random regardless of the number of sources, depth, or historical significance an aspect of medicine during a period of history actually was. That is, if a subject is lucky enough to get a section at all, which is unlikely unless there's a mention of women or faggots.
Here's the paragraph on nursing in the late modern period. What should be a global overview of topic from 19th-20th century becomes a drawn-out digression about British nursing with an obvious feminist slant, alongside an out-of-place reference to the present day despite being a historical retrospective. Then the section pivots to the United States that uses with extremely non-specific terms like "upper-class-women", "large hospitals", and "numerous countries". That's 2 out of roughly 60 countries globally at the time.
For comparison, here's the only mention of the entire field of oncology in the entire article:
More to this point, here's a list of apparently the most important figures in medicine during the 20th century:
Half of them are feminist activists with two only being significant for being lateral achievers known only for being the "first [insert oppressed group] here". Gerty Cori shared her discovery with two men, including her husband. Neither of them appear (just like how no one remembers Pierre Curie). Fleming's discovery of penicillin makes him far and away the most important, yet he's shoved in the middle. No Joseph Edward Murray, the first man to perform a kidney transplant, or Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, creator of the fucking X-ray, or anyone else, just a bunch of stunning women and the token scrote.
Here's a gallery of the most important people of the 21st century:
With all the advancements in immunology, cancer treatments, genetics, medical imaging, etc., you'd expect to see some real heavy hitters. Alas, 3 out of the 7 are useless bureaucrats significant for being a woman, brown, or a brown woman.
I could go on, but articles like these makes it clear Wikipedia isn't the aggregation of all relevant knowledge on a subject compiled into a single online encyclopedia, but rather a jumbled mess of whatever the faggots writing the article were interested in that day.
As an aside. nearly every page on medicine that isn't hyper specific or lacking in detail always features a blurb that says "blacks/women/gays/poors are disproportionately affected" with little explanation to the methodology of whatever study concluded that or explanations as to why. It's obvious that the Wikipedians want the reader to conclude that the disparities are the result of discrimination by whitoids, racism, colonialism and all of those other demons.
From the Indian dispora article [100% verified, up to standard]:
> In contrast to the earliest groups of Indians who entered the US just thinking how much money I can carry from India to workforce as taxi drivers, labourers, farmers, or small business owners, the later arrivals often came as professionals or completed graduate studies in the US and moved into professional occupations. They have become very successful financially thanks to highly technical industries, and are thus probably the most well-off community of immigrants SAAAAAAAAAARRRR
It reached critical mass, so eventually everyone under the age of 25 uses the word chud to describe being a bit of a loser. A total of less than 1% of people that use the word chud know about leftypol.
Daily reminder they are fully funded for a decades, but they keep making these donation appeals so they can fund NGO faggotry and pay themselves large salaries.
You know, this isn't even that weird. In the olden days, it was said that even googling Pokémon stuff would likely pull up porn within the first 10 images, because the internet is for porn. Supposedly it got so bad that Rule34 started labeling images based on the franchise as “Porkyman” so it would stop getting pulled near the top of SFW searches. None of that is surprising either; a lot of millennials had their formative years during the franchise's height, so the Pokégirls were likely their first animated crush.
Also, furries. Between the literal Playboy bunny, the not-quite-Anubis, and Gardevoir (which is admittedly very humanoid and feminine), there are plenty of mons that became sex symbols themselves. I'd rather not think about that Vaporeon rant though.
