Wikipedia Hate - My thread to hate on Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales the pedophile

  • 🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
    🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • 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
Semi-necro. They are so toxic lately.

Any update that they call "vandalism" is reverted within 30 seconds.

Even if you make a positive contribution, it is given a "good faith" reversion, meaning they think you meant well, but since you did not use their watered-down code for babies that makes HTML look like C++ and C++ look like hex editing, you get reverted all the same.
 
This video is atrocious. I don't disagree that Wiki has many issues, but, his video is extremely bias and honestly, pretty wrong in a lot of places.

There's been quite a few studies showing over time, Wikipedia does get less bias, which is helpful to offset their 1% editors issue, definitely the biggest issue he had mentioned.

He fails to recognize that Wiki has different guidelines for sources based on the type of article, and makes the issue with starting to edit sound much worse than it is.
Really, the main issue with Wikipedia is (one he does mention) it's obscene levels of Byzantine bureaucracy that cause it to lean into an American left bias. The number of people even applying to become Wiki admins recently has been decreasing because of it, and that contributes greatly to why it sucks.
 
I would at least have more thoughts about supporting Wikipedia if they'd just stick to a consistent format.

It never fails to annoy the piss out of me. For example like with bands and how they have that nice little graphic that details timelines of how long some members were with the band or so. Metallica on their article, will have it but KMFDM won't have it. Judas Priest would have it, but Tool won't have it. The point is, if you're going to market yourself as the definitive central source of encyclopedic knowledge online, keep up some consistency.

I'll even find texts in red that go no where when some releases of some albums for some reason aren't made because nobody bothered to document them. This is just some half-assed effort and I don't support half-assed effort.
 
Wikipedia is something that "anyone can edit."

But it has more bureaucracy than the DMV.

I misuse it as a social media platform, talking about myself, and then call them script kiddies.



A good example of this (in all ways, is Materialscientist.)

I have a long history of editing Wikipedia and being very me. I was downright toxic with edit summaries. I asked for a review, they said stop using sarcasm and mocking people, and you'll get on better.

I obsessed over the Baseball Mogul page for years and would vandalize it and add rushed edits with IPs and random user names until they locked it.

I'm a huge fan of the series as a more casual fan.

Mogul is superior to OOTP. The people that worship OOTP are obsessed with Fangraphs.... fWAR, bWAR./rWAR

I just want the OPS and the stats clay made on his own.

Maybe not SUPERIOR, I just have a tendency to express my opinions as facts. I am never objective.
 

Is an example of a GOOD policy, Assume Good Faith.

If someone is TRYING to help out, they will "wikify" the code with adjustments.

I always got my capitalization corrected when I made entries.


I was a good citizen, but really hate Jimbo the Clown.

I would sarcastically respond to reversion of what I felt were improvements, and added uncited "original research" without evidence and it was removed.

My edits would usually get edited out over a year or two. And I did make up a nickname that stuck. Glenallen "The Juggler" Hill.

He was a decent hitter, and an atrocious defender. He always seemed to make fielding mistakes, but his decent batting numbers made up for that.

I preferred Marvin Benard. Was it ALL steroids? No. He was a BALCO lab rat with injuries.

He suddenly went from a scrappy guy with 3 HR to 16.

This was Steroid era, but he openly admitted to using them.


They often has an obsession with "proper sources" which is Reddit-esque, but more agreeable.

They always debate over gossip rags. Like "Huffington Post", "Reason.org" are OKAY, but not preferred, yadda yadda.

I think the longwinded rant about the furry that made up Rationalwiki was informative.

There, I just troll them by editing image sizes.
 
TLDR:

Wikipedia is funded by pedophiles.

My real conspiracy.

Not Epstein list bullshit, but the whole point of Wikipedia is to give everything for free.

It's good if you want to sperg out over the history of an obscure TV show or your favorite band.

But for anything scientific or historical, it uses "NPOV" to remain "neutral."

You can't use "weasel words" like "some, very, most"

They just want HARD DATA with no depth.
 
is grokopedia going to be a thing? god i hate the modern era internets
Grok always tries to tell you what you want to hear.

It's way too goofy and positive.

I ramble on about myself and it gives random feedback.

The programming part is intriguing. I was a shitty kid programmer. Everything Max and I did was full of GOTOs.

We had random "text adventure" games with GOTO, not even Case or IF.
 
TLDR:

Wikipedia is funded by pedophiles.

My real conspiracy.

Not Epstein list bullshit, but the whole point of Wikipedia is to give everything for free.

It's good if you want to sperg out over the history of an obscure TV show or your favorite band.

But for anything scientific or historical, it uses "NPOV" to remain "neutral."

You can't use "weasel words" like "some, very, most"

They just want HARD DATA with no depth.
Free and hard data = pedophilia?
 
The insanely leftist psychotic revisionism of Wikipedo is the main issue that I have with them. Along with the constant e-begging of course. I'm almost ashamed to admit that I actually donated to them once years ago. And the fuckers haven't stopped reminding me since.


Casual reminder that the longer it goes on as an institution, the more communist ideology takes over. Revolution is perpetual, history is over, etc. Everything that used to be fact is now slandered as conspiracy theories or lies or "MiSiNfOrMaTiOn". They've even resorted to editing their edit history to cover their tracks.
Wiki.jpg


Literally the only reason I use wikipedia is to look up the physical dimensions (length/width/height) of cars, and maybe for summaries of some super-detailed historical stuff specific to certain towns/states. Hosting a website is actually fairly cheap if it's just text with no comments and minimal images, so I've seriously considered making a text-only site that is just vehicle specs.

Wouldn't be opposed to doing a history site also, but then one runs into the same problem as Null, where fags who don't like the stuff you record will try to take your site down.

Check out charm.li for modern automotive information up to 2013 or so.
 
They've even resorted to editing their edit history to cover their tracks.
The "Cultural Marxism" article is entirely gone now, and the "conspiracy theory" one only goes back to 2017. And I can't find any article on just plain "cultural marxism" in any other language articles either. Seems it's all "far right conspiracy theory" bullshit wherever I look. Somehow, it really seems they really don't want you to know of it.

edit to add:

article in the screenshot: article on May 2014
article at 7 months later: article on Dec 2014

By December the intro was changed from this...

Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized.

to this...

Cultural Marxism is a pejorative term used by proponents of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory to describe the core of that theory.

... and the article was already "being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" by then.
 
Última edición:
The "Cultural Marxism" article is entirely gone now, and the "conspiracy theory" one only goes back to 2017. And I can't find any article on just plain "cultural marxism" in any other language articles either. Seems it's all "far right conspiracy theory" bullshit wherever I look. Somehow, it really seems they really don't want you to know of it.

edit to add:

article in the screenshot: article on May 2014
article at 7 months later: article on Dec 2014

By December the intro was changed from this...



to this...



... and the article was already "being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" by then.
The current version of the article is now named "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". Most translations of the article seem to be direct translations. The exception is Polish (as of March 2026) because it exists as a section on another article titled Marxist Anthropology. The section still calls Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory but offers an alternative term for further research on the phenomenon, philosophical postmodernism and poststructuralism. Archive in Polish

Google Translate:
Marx did not consider culture to be an autonomous field; he considered it to be a domain of ideology, and thus an expression of capitalist production relations [ 8 ] . Some scholars, however, attempted to analyze culture from a Marxist perspective, with particular influence coming from the Frankfurt School (especially Theodor Adorno , Walter Benjamin , Herbert Marcuse ), the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci , active in the pre-war period , and the British literary scholar Raymond Williams [ 8 ] . For example, Theodor Adorno analyzed the status of art in capitalism from a Marxist perspective. He believed that mass culture transforms art into a commodity and degrades its value [ 9 ] .

Analyzing culture from a Marxist perspective has attracted the attention of some anthropologists, such as Michael Taussing and Jean Comaroff [ 8 ] . Both scholars sought to understand how local cultures can be a source of resistance to capitalism [ 8 ] .

In the 1990s, the concept of "cultural Marxism" began to function among the far-right in the USA as a kind of conspiracy theory , according to which members of the Frankfurt School had translated Marxism from the field of economics to the field of culture and created an allegedly totalitarian ideology of political correctness [ 10 ] . This concept was used by Anders Breivik to justify his terrorist attacks; Breivik claimed that his goal was to fight "cultural Marxism" [ 11 ] . Proponents of this understanding of the concept include authors such as Patrick Buchanan [ 11 ] , Gerald Atkinson [ 12 ] , William Lind [ 12 ] , Michael Minnicino [ 12 ] .

The correct name for this phenomenon, against which its opponents are opposed, is philosophical postmodernism (especially the theory of poststructuralism ), which does not have Marxist roots but draws heavily on the thought of Nietzsche and Heidegger [ 13 ] [ 14 ] .
 
Atrás
Top Abajo