There are some threads about Wikipedia from time to time on /pol/, but they never are successful, because it takes some time to learn about the organisation of Wikipedia and how it works. And /pol/ is just too fast for this.
Wikipedia has some big problems with biased mods and because there are thousands of (written and unwritten) rules, it is very easy for them to "censor" you. It is nearly impossible to not break one of the countless rules. And if you aren't a marxist, they just act a bit tougher on you and soon you will be tired and give up.
If you write some lefty shit, it is totally ok if your only source is Buzzfeed or some shady blog... and sometimes they don't even have a source.
If you write something the mods don't like, you need at least 3 different sources and all of them have to be from "trustworthy" MSM sites… and then they will delete it anyway, without a comment, and then you have to start a discussion at the discussion page and most likely the mod will just not answer at all.
This problem exists for years now. And everyone who ever edited a Wikipedia page knows about it.
Lots of people tried multiple times to raise awareness about this and they even made alternative wikis.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): FE05C7CFCE9944D1522DF75A843B2B40-12429.png (12.1 KB, 200x183, Wikipedia-logo-v2.png)
>>32206
Well, I don't trust Wikipedia, but it's useful for things that are inherently unbiased. At this point though I think things like ED and other joke sources of news are actually better than Wikipedia, because at least you know for a fact that half the stuff is a complete joke. "Fake news" isn't the problem, the problem is when news mixes fact and opinion without telling the viewer.
Well, I don't trust Wikipedia, but it's useful for things that are inherently unbiased. At this point though I think things like ED and other joke sources of news are actually better than Wikipedia, because at least you know for a fact that half the stuff is a complete joke. "Fake news" isn't the problem, the problem is when news mixes fact and opinion without telling the viewer.
I noticed this too, although my suspicions aren't ingrained in that much experience because I'm not a foolish normie who uses Wikipedia.
File (): E93225E71192894B9438D50820F78907-484688.jpg (473.3 KB, 1316x1080, wiki-bias2.jpg)
>>32207
The problem is that most people are not able to spot biased articles.
They think like this:
> Wikipedia was always right in Articles about math, science and astronomy, so i trust them in politics too
It is like a professor who is totally awesome and smart in his specific field… but he is an idiot everywhere else and he can't change a light bulb without help.
The problem is that most people are not able to spot biased articles.
They think like this:
> Wikipedia was always right in Articles about math, science and astronomy, so i trust them in politics too
It is like a professor who is totally awesome and smart in his specific field… but he is an idiot everywhere else and he can't change a light bulb without help.
>>32212
>most people are not able to spot biased articles.
Normiesa also often fail to read the citations...
In my opinion, If you don't read the citation you deserve to be lied to.
>most people are not able to spot biased articles.
Normiesa also often fail to read the citations...
In my opinion, If you don't read the citation you deserve to be lied to.
>>32206
I use wikipedia to get a basic idea, but when I write essays I am not allowed to use wikipedia as a source, no matter how tempting it is
I use wikipedia to get a basic idea, but when I write essays I am not allowed to use wikipedia as a source, no matter how tempting it is
File (): E161A9D5FA75E8BE4D0975DEAD388088-394208.png (385.0 KB, 1242x1655, wikipedia-fake-news-d1.png)
File (): 0A7079A7FCBDB31B33715E3B474FC7C4-202346.png (197.6 KB, 1233x872, wikipedia-fake-news-d2.png)
File (): EC26CB7033E9406C9E85E71B40EE4E86-594984.png (581.0 KB, 1228x2517, wikipedia-fake-news-d3.png)
File (): BB9DC46D73E448D6FEE06D4255B5D270-620785.png (606.2 KB, 1243x2770, wikipedia-fake-news-d4.png)
File (): 9AA4F972BDBBADB23FB423A13E4C8A09-118498.png (115.7 KB, 1096x529, wikipedia-fake-news-d5.png)
>>32209
>>32210
Not without reading text walls.
Because it is always like this:
> Someone tries to write something which some marxist admin dosen't like
> Admin deletes it without any comment
> The writer asks in the discussion page about it
> looong textwalls, he needs to rephrase it 1 million times and get 25 different sources
> People get tired
> At the end, nothing gets changed
And in the mean time someone adds some lefty sentence with Buzzfeed as the only source and no Admin cares about it. Nobody talks about 3 different sources there.
>>32210
Not without reading text walls.
Because it is always like this:
> Someone tries to write something which some marxist admin dosen't like
> Admin deletes it without any comment
> The writer asks in the discussion page about it
> looong textwalls, he needs to rephrase it 1 million times and get 25 different sources
> People get tired
> At the end, nothing gets changed
And in the mean time someone adds some lefty sentence with Buzzfeed as the only source and no Admin cares about it. Nobody talks about 3 different sources there.
>>32218
Here is the page of this androgyn marxist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RGloucester
Here is the jew:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IZAK
Here is the guy with the "Golden Wiki" thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Four_Deuces
But you should know that those "awards" are given from one user to another. Basically you could register at Wikipedia and give someone an award right now. It's just a big circlejerk of lefties praising each other.
Here is the page of this androgyn marxist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RGloucester
Here is the jew:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IZAK
Here is the guy with the "Golden Wiki" thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Four_Deuces
But you should know that those "awards" are given from one user to another. Basically you could register at Wikipedia and give someone an award right now. It's just a big circlejerk of lefties praising each other.
File (): F87BBA70441BD8359C6F2373A9D879DF-40364.jpg (39.4 KB, 566x430, tmp_14947-000522126130925.jpg)
Wikipedia is where you go for the current mainstream view, and citations. Grab the citation and start your genuine research from there. Once you grasp that then look online for opposing views and their citations.
I consider Wikipedia to be the current socially acceptable mythology on any subject, even science and astronomy.
I consider Wikipedia to be the current socially acceptable mythology on any subject, even science and astronomy.
>>32233
One of those 3 mentioned users is on Wikipedia since 2002, one for 6 years, and one for 8 years.
For more examples, just browse through their history and look at the users they like and what they are doing.
They give each other awards, so it's easy to spot them.
But you have to read a lot!
You can also just ask the guys from metapedia.org .
I know that it would be nice to have some more infopics, where you immediately see the marxist Admins and their actions.
But it's not that easy, because of the massive amount of text. It's just not possible to create a pic for every edit-war on Wikipedia.
Maybe i will put some effort into it and make some nice pics at the weekend.
One of those 3 mentioned users is on Wikipedia since 2002, one for 6 years, and one for 8 years.
For more examples, just browse through their history and look at the users they like and what they are doing.
They give each other awards, so it's easy to spot them.
But you have to read a lot!
You can also just ask the guys from metapedia.org .
I know that it would be nice to have some more infopics, where you immediately see the marxist Admins and their actions.
But it's not that easy, because of the massive amount of text. It's just not possible to create a pic for every edit-war on Wikipedia.
Maybe i will put some effort into it and make some nice pics at the weekend.
>>32206
Wikipedia is pure 1985 newspeak. The mods are essentially all arseholes and every-time I have wanted to add or edit I end up in a fight with some cunt. What is worse is that they are the go to for information even on the chans.
Some pages are however not monitored and you can have some fun. Bob Crow was rarely looked at so I changed it to say he was into brass band music. Took three weeks for someone correct my false entry.
My question is when does MLPOL have justification to have its own page and when does MLPOL get a proper encyclopedia dramatica page?
Wikipedia is pure 1985 newspeak. The mods are essentially all arseholes and every-time I have wanted to add or edit I end up in a fight with some cunt. What is worse is that they are the go to for information even on the chans.
Some pages are however not monitored and you can have some fun. Bob Crow was rarely looked at so I changed it to say he was into brass band music. Took three weeks for someone correct my false entry.
My question is when does MLPOL have justification to have its own page and when does MLPOL get a proper encyclopedia dramatica page?
File (): 6AC6BB9DFBA1E9ED238C6FA005CCF3BA-167303.jpg (163.4 KB, 618x896, IMG_4398.JPG)
>>32277
Jesus Christ. If it "started in the 90s" why is the first entry from after election where Hillary used the term. They might also say that Angry White Men Liberated France from the suppressive regime.
https://youtu.be/gMYNfQlf1H8
Jesus Christ. If it "started in the 90s" why is the first entry from after election where Hillary used the term. They might also say that Angry White Men Liberated France from the suppressive regime.
https://youtu.be/gMYNfQlf1H8
>>32277
Did some edits to reflect the truth more accurately, hopefully the sjw on wikipedia won't change them back too soon.
Did some edits to reflect the truth more accurately, hopefully the sjw on wikipedia won't change them back too soon.
>>32277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_white_male#In_popular_culture
Just edit it a bit and see how long before they go back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_white_male#In_popular_culture
Just edit it a bit and see how long before they go back.
>>32282
However they have got bots that just reverse everything immediately. Just shows how toxic it has become.
However they have got bots that just reverse everything immediately. Just shows how toxic it has become.
>>32288
I would advise people just to ignore Wikipedia and any attack on it. They are the most toxic, autistic bunch of cunts you can encounter online. You will achieve two things:
1. Personal, physical and mental disease.
2. An incredible amount of lost time that you could have done something more practical with.
I would advise people just to ignore Wikipedia and any attack on it. They are the most toxic, autistic bunch of cunts you can encounter online. You will achieve two things:
1. Personal, physical and mental disease.
2. An incredible amount of lost time that you could have done something more practical with.
File (): 1DAC9DE1ADB480D2FAB323841BA3865D-123058.jpg (120.2 KB, 640x732, wiki1.jpg)
File (): 81B742E2605402D9F0AB936FB4357FB6-24272.jpg (23.7 KB, 640x205, wiki2.jpg)
>>32281
They reverted everything immediately… just the addition with the alt-left is still there.
But i guess that just nobody realized it yet.
btw.: Look at this faggot
Posting from the University wifi and making SJW edits.
(but at least someone reverted his changes too — he is just too obvious)
They reverted everything immediately… just the addition with the alt-left is still there.
But i guess that just nobody realized it yet.
btw.: Look at this faggot
Posting from the University wifi and making SJW edits.
(but at least someone reverted his changes too — he is just too obvious)
>>32289
This.
And never start debating on Talk-Pages. Because it is impossible to win. I never saw one single edit-war were someone won. You will just end up with incredible long textwalls. Edit-wars always end with no change being made at all.
You can have a million sources, you can BTFO everyone, you can win every single argument… but in the end someone will just write Logical Fallacies or insult you and some Admin will close the discussion because of this other guy getting triggerd...
They just sabotage you.
But it is still important to visit Talk-pages and to post there. Because you can make other peoples aware of the Wiki-bias.
And we need some examples to redpill normies about the political part of Wikipedia.
Just don't waste your time with incredible long discussions.
This.
And never start debating on Talk-Pages. Because it is impossible to win. I never saw one single edit-war were someone won. You will just end up with incredible long textwalls. Edit-wars always end with no change being made at all.
You can have a million sources, you can BTFO everyone, you can win every single argument… but in the end someone will just write Logical Fallacies or insult you and some Admin will close the discussion because of this other guy getting triggerd...
They just sabotage you.
But it is still important to visit Talk-pages and to post there. Because you can make other peoples aware of the Wiki-bias.
And we need some examples to redpill normies about the political part of Wikipedia.
Just don't waste your time with incredible long discussions.
>>32307
They'll have notifications set up so they can revert wrongthink in case someone touches one of "their" articles.
And there are organizations set up to inject their bias into articles on a large scale, together with organized mass-editing sessions (edit-a-thons?) on a regular basis.
WP is shit, don't use it for anything besides getting a quick summary of uncontroversial subjects.
They'll have notifications set up so they can revert wrongthink in case someone touches one of "their" articles.
And there are organizations set up to inject their bias into articles on a large scale, together with organized mass-editing sessions (edit-a-thons?) on a regular basis.
WP is shit, don't use it for anything besides getting a quick summary of uncontroversial subjects.
File (): DAD9633F92D75331721F2EBB46599BFA-133474.jpg (130.3 KB, 800x534, angry toads.jpg)
>>32277
>mfw wrote countless articles like this about every race
>mfw they were better cited, better written and more accurate than this one
>mfw this bullshit gets to stay up when all of mine got taken down within days
Why are only SJWs allowed to have fun?!
>mfw wrote countless articles like this about every race
>mfw they were better cited, better written and more accurate than this one
>mfw this bullshit gets to stay up when all of mine got taken down within days
Why are only SJWs allowed to have fun?!
so does that dumb fuck jimbo whales - the guy that runs the place - know about this shit? Or is he a lefty fagtivist too / behind it all?
>>32360
I doubt anyone knows about the entire workings of Wikipedia: it was meant to be run by the users. It is a good question though, as to whether or not he has instructed his goons to monitor for racism and whatnot.
I doubt anyone knows about the entire workings of Wikipedia: it was meant to be run by the users. It is a good question though, as to whether or not he has instructed his goons to monitor for racism and whatnot.
>>32452
This.
I used to add fake animals to Wikipedia for fun (I was young: I hated society). It's by no means reliable.
This.
I used to add fake animals to Wikipedia for fun (I was young: I hated society). It's by no means reliable.
Despite being on Wikipedia a lot I use it to get an overview and start research most of the time.
I am more interested in science than opinions so it doesn't influence the stuff I look up most of the time.
I am more interested in science than opinions so it doesn't influence the stuff I look up most of the time.
File (): 093BA9FE80576950EEADEA23D685F83D-117877.jpg (115.1 KB, 738x829, image.jpeg)
File (): E7115831A5332AC2563B0CF5039F4567-175774.png (171.7 KB, 772x594, ebil poster.png)
33 replies | 16 files | 14 UUIDs | Archived