They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust.
They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust.
332 comments
-
Wiki was getting popular when I was in college over 10 years ago. I recall a history professor telling me not to use Wikipedia as source. I am like, okay, I will just use the source wiki uses, which are pretty solid in my opinion. Wiki came a long way.
-
Yeah, it's important to remember that wikipedia, itself, isn't a source, it's a summary of different sources. It's a great resource to find sources and get an overview of a topic, though.
-
Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of eventually being correct, at any given time it can be outrageously inaccurate. Its good to not just use wikipedia entrys and use the sources that are linked there. By using the sources that are cited you are helping to keep wiki trustworthy and helps avoid you using bad information.
It works well to manage the integrity of wiki. I think being able to intuitively navigate between entries by a variety of metrics like edits that have remained unedited the longest/shorest, newest/oldest, etc would be a very good addition to wiki.
Some kind of webarchive of wiki sources would also be amazing so that if the sources disappear or change over time there is a connection to what it was at the time it originally/previously was used as a source on wiki.
And maybe some of this already exists and im just not very good at getting my 4dollars a month worth :P
-
Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of eventually being correct, at any given time it can be outrageously inaccurate.
Yeah, I agree with this. I work at a high end engineering company, and some engineers have gotten into trouble using things like materials properties that they got from Wikipedia and turned out to be wrong, with unfortunate results. By policy, if we don't know something like that we're supposed to ask our tech library to get us the information, and that's why.
-
A bunch of wikipedia sources are already archived on the wayback machine, anything cited to like pre-2010, online, there's a good chance it got taken down or changed in the last 13 years.
-
-
As long as you verify the source still exists. There are so many dead links on Wikipedia.
-
Archive.org bots replace dead links with working alternatives a lot nowadays. All the more reason to support that modern museum
-
-
Please dig a little bit deeper. You may end up with a stack of links to 404 sites instead of actual sources. Just because you copied a citation from WP doesn’t mean the source actually exists, let alone contains the information you seek.
-
In that case, try using an archived version of the webpage, for example at the Wayback Machine
-
-
And it'll get even better. That being said, it's worth checking out the Talk pages on the articles you want to use, as they may contain information about what is (and isn't) displayed.
I started passively editing it and I've been incredibly impressed.
-
-
-
Nah, you can't. It's still a great resource, but you always gotta read it critically.
-
The thing is that it is very easy to read Wikipedia critically, since it lists every single source they get info from at the bottom of the page.
-
I feel like news sources used to link to their sources too, but now it seems to be an infinite chain of links to their own articles, never directly taking you to the first hand source of information (unless they are the source).
-
The thing is, if the place you're getting your information from doesn't list it's sources, you can't trust it. Whenever I'm researching a thing on the internet and I find an article or a paper, I don't just stop there, I check where they got their info, then I find that source and read it. I follow it all the way back until I find the primary source.
Like the other day I was writing a paper about a particular court case. In the opinions, as in most cases, they use precedent and cite prior cases. So I found the other cases that referred to the thing I was writing about, and it turns out they were also just using prior cases. I had to go 6 deep before I found them referencing the actual constitution for one of them. On another I found it interesting that the most recent use case was so far removed from what the original one was about and it was could probably be questionable to even use it as precedent if they had used the original instead of another case.
Anyway, the point is, always check sources. If anyone says anything on the internet, assume it's just their opinion until you check and follow the sources..
-
-
Love reading any article then opening the talk tab for the civil war of edits proposed.
-
You should read everything critically. Which is easier on Wikipedia because it provides sources.
-
-
Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for information - but saying you can absolutely trust it hell no.
-
Yup, tried to correct something about a motorcycle manufacturer (no road legal model between year A and Z), linked to another Wikipedia article proving what I was saying (road legal modelS in year W to Y, just before Z), the next day the page was back to its previous version. I linked to the article about the road legal model they pretended didn't exist and they just edited the page back to its previous version...
-
How dare you hurt another editor's feelings with your facts!
-
-
It's like chatGPT then!
-
at least Wikipedia is human-curated.
-
-
-
Wikipedia is the only piece of the internet I would save from apocalipse. Like, seriously.
-
Yeah, I have Wikipedia saved to a portable hard drive... Just in case
-
I remember in the mid-aughts my brother hacked his iPod — the wheel kind, this was pre-iPhone — to hold the entirety of the text of English Wikipedia at the time.
-
It's less than 90 gig to do a full backup. I can have the sum total of human knowledge on a 1TB external SDD, and still have room for Skyrim and my modlist.
-
-
What if you need to remember how to procreate? I hear there are a number of informative videos about how to out there.
-
But there aren't on YouTube :-P
-
-
It would also be nice to have a p2p service still up in the internet apocalypse to share all the things we have left.
-
Could work like the underground networks in Cuba (I say underground but apparently there's wires everywhere?)
-
-
-
- With the exception of any article that's even slightly political.
-
Even for political content it's damn good. Every time someone on Lemmy points to an explicit article of bias, it falls into one of 3 categories:
- Slightly unfair bias, but still largely true
- Article is correct, Lemmy cannot provide a reliable source proving otherwise
- Article is incorrect, reliable source found, article amended
The third case happened once in an article about a UN Resolution on North Korea, and it was because the original article source was slightly misinterpreted. But yea, basically what I'm trying to say is if a "political article" is "wrong" but you can't prove it, it's not the political article that's wrong but you.
Edit: ITT - People upset with my analysis, but not willing to provide sources to the articles they disagree with
-
Wikipedia has a claimed positive-bias, in which negative things are often left out of the article. This is more true the lower profile the page is.
And Wikipedia has an overall left-bias, because of the demographic of contributors.
-
-
Honestly the aren't that biased
-
Nah.
I edited a page for a new OS update that was coming out. The page was FULL of misinformation, and I cleaned it up, linked official documentation as sources, etc.
My edits were reverted by some butt hurt guy who originally wrote the page full of misinformation, 0 sources, and broken English.
I reverted back to mine.
He reverted back to his.
He spammed my profile page calling me names, and then reported me to Wiki admins. I was told not to revert changes or I would be perma-banned. I explained how the original page was broken English, misinformation, and 0 sources were cited. They straight up told me they did NOT care.
Stopped editing wiki pages, and stopped trusting them. They didn't care about factual information. They just wanted to enforce their reverting rule.
-
I'd love their perspective on this and the actual messages sent as this isn't very useful standalone.
-
Their profile was banned last time I looked about a year ago. My profile I deleted because it was permanently tainted by that asshole spamming my talk page.
I remember posting about it on Reddit back when it happened a few years ago, and everyone in the comments told me how they've had similar experiences. Really just made me weary about trusting Wikipedia. I mean sure, if they get the date of a movie wrong that's fine, but as for more serious topics, I just can't really trust it.
Even sources can be garbage. I've seen plenty of blog spam cited as sources, which means nothing.
-
-
TBH that doesn't surprise me.. I had a minor spat over the existence of a local supermarket, of all the stupid things.. Wiki said it had been refused planning permission and never built. I had shopped in there many times, and could link to many articles about the fully built existing supermarket. I gave up after the second revert because it's just not worth it.
-
there is a bureaucracy for dealing with the situation you described. the other editor gamed it, but if you were right, a little persistence would have left your edits in place.
-
I didn't know what to do. I was being threatened with a ban, even after explaining myself and my edits.
At the end of the day the Wikipedia page didn't matter to me that much. Who cares if people get misinformation about an OS update. I quite literally didn't get paid enough to deal with that.
It just really changed my perspective on Wikipedia. Unless you look at the history and check out profiles of people who get in edit battles, you really don't know what's going on behind the scenes.
At the end of the day the Wikipedia page I was trying to edit ended up being corrected by someone else (who completely disregarded all of my effort), but it took a month, and someone else to do it, before the page wasn't full of misinformation anymore. RIP to anyone who visited that page within that month and never returned, because they were fed 80% misinformation.
-
Pro wrestling wiki pages used to have entrance themes, finishers and signature moves in the wrestler's page.
One power-mod removed it and it's gone.
People suck wiki's cock on the Internet, but it's a pretty dogshit site and I wish it dies so that a new and better alternative pops up.
-
I think assuming a better alternative will appear is a bad idea. Most likely some company sees an opening to control the information and monetize it. They can't really now because Wikipedia is the default, but I don't doubt someone would try if they see the hold Wikipedia has falter.
-
Tbh those pieces of trivia don't feel like encyclopedic information in the first place. A reader need not know specific intro songs to have an encyclopedic overview of wrestling, just that intro songs are often used.
A list containing the specific intro songs is vastly more suited for a fandom repository than an encyclopedia.
-
That sucks, but I also kind of empathize with wiki mods, cause it's really hard to know when to cut stuff down. I remember seeing a while back a bunch of people that migrated out from wikipedia to some completely unknown new wiki nobody will ever hear about, because they were working on chronicling all the roads in america with screenshots and notes of location and historical details about it all. Wikipedia didn't really get it, as it's more like a kind of academic and news aggregate, and there was nothing really there to aggregate, it was just an infodump of a bunch of different stuff. If wikipedia was a 1-1 map of the world, then it would be the size of the world. Or bigger, if you include historical stuff. No way you're fitting all that on a 102 gig drive, or whatever the size of wikipedia is. Plus there's hosting costs to consider, so it's not like they could do that even if they really wanted.
-
-
It's mostly true for articles that do not have large public coverage. Otherwise the number of those who stubbornly fight for the truth will prevail
-
How dare you trash Wikipedia on Lemmy? Infidel like you should be sent to gulag.
-
-
My workplace got a "coronavirus" chat on the corporate chat server. And the known "conspiracy theorist" guy on my team posted a link to some article on some total misinformation mill masquerading as a news source.
I looked up the name of the source on Wikipedia, which said it was a total misinformation mill.
So I linked to the Wikipedia article in the chat.
I work at a fairly big and diverse company, so of course there was more than one conspiracy guy there. It was really surreal watching people who literally think all governments are run by a secret cabal of Democrat extraterrestrial pedophile child-adrenaline junkies attack the trustworthiness of Wikipedia.
Edit: I'd forgotten the name of the "misinformation mill" that originally started that shit storm in the work chat, but I went back and looked it up. It was Project Veritas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
-
99% of people bashing Wikipedia do so because they read that they're delusional about something.
Source: have read >100 Wikipedia bashings that answered follow-up questions.
-
Silly question but why is a work chat used for conspiracy theories? It seems like a bad use of company resources
-
They've got the permissions set up on the work chat server to allow anyone to create chats at will. Those chats can be public (listed in the search and anyone can join with a click) or private (can't be joined without an invite from the owner of the channel).
And they don't discourage non-work-related chats for... team building reasons, probably? There's one for "Video Games" for instance.
I know the guy who made the "coronavirus" chat and he 100% did not intend it for conspiracy theories. The whole IT department was in the process of going remote when that chat was created and that chat was intended for everything from helpful tips for working remotely to news/rumors about when/if we might be going back to the office to news about death rate statistics and such.
And this conspiracy guy had (still has, actually) a deep-seated need to proselatize for the conspiracy of the week 24/7/365. So he just decided that was as good a pulpit as any.
Shortly after the shitstorm started, three levels of management above both me and Conspiracy McGee entered the chat. They didn't end up doing anything. (It fizzled before they had to take action.) But I'm sure they all had their fingers hovering about 2mm above the "shut that shit down" button.
Now, all that said, there is a chat on the work chat server dedicated to the conspiracy podcast "No Agenda." And I'm pretty certain it was created by Conspiracy McGee. And I'm pretty sure my/his direct boss is in the No Agenda chat.
So, I guess the short answer to your question is that they don't want to shut down non-work-related chats so as to pay some lip service to team building and not appear too draconian (while at the same tacitly encouraging a culture in which it's not really acceptable to spend too much time in those chats rather than furiously typing code). And the company's management is sufficiently right-wing as to not get that allowing conspiracy theorists to conspiracy theorist is eventually going to backfire on them, so they don't see it as dangerous. So they see it not much unlike having a chat about the latest Mario Kart game or the Marvel Cinematic Universe or whatever.
Hopefully that answers somewhat.
-
-
Wikipedia was useful for me as a grad student because I could look up a topic and there would be a whole lot of citations I could follow. I never used them as a source, but rather as a curated forum of information.
-
Wikipedia is like our dear friend. It gives us general information, good advice, and direction in life, but never gets too deeply in it. The choice is ours to make.
-
Only problem is that half of them are broken :(
-
I've been doing exactly the same thing with LLMs recently.
"Tell me about "
"What are the big problems their industry is trying to solve?"
"Who are their biggest competitors?"
"What's the worst/best thing about them?"Questions like that often give me a great framework to look up specific questions, find relevant articles and get a handle on the sources that are likely to be useful.
-
-
I was always told not to quote Wikipedia. They told everyone this because people would constantly quote Wikipedia and then someone would edit it so that the paragraph was now different. It was a right pain even if the information was correct.
What you do is you check Wikipedia's sources and then quote those sources. Hopefully they're quoting academic papers and not blog posts because otherwise you're just kicking the cam down the road.
-
I hated in high school that teachers always said the internet isn't a good source.
In college I finally realized that websites were poor sources because they change and move, whereas a published book, edition, and page number won't change. But that doesn't mean you can't use the Internet to find a good source - you just need to cite the source itself and not the site.
Everything I've published is published digitally, but the journals still have editions and page numbers. When someone cites my work, they need to cite that information - not the website that may change names or shut down.
So now I'm mostly mad that teachers don't explain why websites shouldn't be cited. It makes good sense in that context.
-
I think it definitely was a huge breakdown in academic's to adapt to new technology, and it is at the core of a lot of the societal problems we face today. Of course, a lot of the reasons for this were by design at the hands of a few corporate actors, and they share a lot of culpability.
There are philosophical underpinnings too - a lot of academics are still caught up on modernism (which would rightfully distrust new internet sources in favor of legacy sources of proven idealistic knowledge) vs. Postmodernism, which would provide a framework to recognize the truth in these systems.
One thing to keep in mind is that computers and the internet are still extremely new, and we are still figuring them out. It has only been a decade and a half where everyone has a general purpose, internet connected computer in their pocket.
-
There's still good and plenty fuckery that can happen with citing books, though. Depending on the obscurity of the book, whether or not it's out of print, or just has been outright destroyed, it might be really hard to access a copy, and check the source, especially if someone doesn't have access to the internet archive or library genesis, i.e. digital scans of said book. There are reprints and new editions, sometimes not noted by the author of the citation (the author might have no way of knowing, depends), which can change or remove quoted passages. The internet also contains the ability to mass copy anything you want, and cite that copy, like what the internet archive does with the wayback machine, so if you have a citation of a webpage it's probably a good idea to copy that in time and then spread it around anyways just for the sake of posterity and accessibility, especially if it's obscure or is likely to be changed or removed. Same as you might for a book, except much easier, it's much harder to copy a whole book in context and spread that around compared to a webpage.
-
-
Quote the sources or the source's sources of Wikipedia. You would not believe how bullet proof this is against plagiarism if you do your citations correctly.
I don't even understand how people get caught.
-
-
When "they used to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia" it wasn't in contrast to random websites; it was in contrast to primary sources.
That's still true today. Wikipedia is generally less reliable than encyclopedias are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia.
The people who tell you not to trust Wikipedia aren't saying that you shouldn't use it at all. They're telling you not to stop there. That's exactly what they told us about encylopedias too.
If you're researching a new topic, Wikipedia is a great place for an initial overview. If you actually care about facts, you should double check claims independently. That means following their sources until you get to primary sources. If you've ever done this exercise it becomes obvious why you shouldn't trust Wikipedia. Some sources are dead links, some are not publicly accessible and many aren't primary sources. In egregious cases the "sources" are just opinion pieces.
-
Wiki was as reliable as encyclopedias in 2005. It is far superior today.
-
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."
-Homer Simpson
-
-
Just look in this thread. I'm not talking about writing college papers. I'm talking about the boomers saying you can't trust anything you read on the internet.
-
Anecdotal, but I've never had a teacher tell me why Wikipedia wasn't a good source. Similarly, I've never had a teacher educate students on how to properly use resources like Wikipedia as a starting point for sources. All my peers and I heard was "Wikipedia is bad, never use it, it's not reliable, don't trust anything from it."
I wish I had been taught why and how earlier, but I had to learn why and how myself.
-
The thing is: in the not to distant future encyclopedias will be a thing of the past.
-
-
The Tab "Talk" gives you a lot more to learn on some pages, take a look !
-
Yet if you ever try to edit a page, the "Talk" tab is filled with the most pretentious protectionist people. You can add helpful context or missing information with sources to the wiki, and it will get deleted simply because you haven't spent months cozying up to the greaseball who sits on that specific wiki entry as if they possess it.
-
Just call then out on it in talk by mentioning why you would add it.
Alternatively make an upgraded English-only wiki alternative with way larger article max sizes so we can finally evolve it past 2005. And start using YouTube links and not (just) a native video player. And start quoting/including entire chapters from relevant books.
-
-
In general wikipedia is a great source of knowledge that would be very hard to find elsewhere. That said, it can and often is edited by anyone. I'll never forget a friend sent me a link to file system comparison chart which included ReiserFS and someone added the last column 'Murders your wife' to 'Features' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_file_systems&oldid=209063556#Features
-
Elon Musk Offers to Also Ruin Wikipedia https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/elon-musk-wikipedia-twitter-x-encyclopedia-1234861220/
-
-
Definitely not wiremin! it's scam
Look at their website, they keep babbling about their "protocol", but all you can find about this supposed protocol is marketing speak, no real technical specification or paper, no code, nothing. How does this thing actually run? Nobody knows.
It's proprietary, which alone is enough reason to run away from it. And seeing that the dev's email is gmail, we can be sure they don't give a fuck about privacy or decentralization.
-
-
-
And interestingly it’s trustable because it’s got no central authority core that can be corrupted
-
Except there are defacto central authorities governing certain pages.
Not only that there's a turf war going on for control of them.
Certain ahem religious organizations monitor a variety of pages and snipe any changes they disagree with. Businesses are doing it too.
-
And certain politicians
-
I haven’t participated in wikipedia enough to see how these turf wars play out. I’ve heard that, unsurprisingly, there are groups that control pages, some opposed and some unopposed. It’s a really interesting thing to me.
I’m afraid of politics, generally speaking. But I bet it would be interesting to be a part of all that.
-
-
I think the word you're looking for is "trustworthy" but yes.
-
I consider it a separate concept.
-
-
That's is definitely not true...
-
-
-
Yes. That's how you use an encyclopedia.
-
Big brain move: Tell your students about this neat loophole, gets them started on actual research.
(Ideally - I'd be lying if I said I've never used a quote from Wikipedia citing the stated source without actually reading it [usually at 5 am for papers due in two hours], but more often than not Wikipedia was the signpost for the rabbit hole)
-
Not fully trust, but I trust it more than some listicles and low-quality SEO-boost sites.
When I want to learn something new, I often come to Wikipedia, or Britannica, or YouTube to get to know the subject. And generally, they will recommend me with some valuable reference to dig deeper.
-
Wikipedia has been dealing with AI and bots since someone made a 2000 census article writer in 2003. Hopefully they are resistant to the rise of Chatbots
-
my understanding from an English professor is less about its reliability of information, but more its reliability regarding citing sources. you can't cite something that consistently changes
-
The schools should have used wikipedia as an opportunity to teach media literacy. You don't use wiki as your source, you go to the cited sources and investigate those. Use the cited sources a in your school reports.
-
Yet I see some teachers themselves using "Source: Google images" lmao
-
-
Technically you could cite a version in the version history. But Wikipedia isn't about being right. It's about trying to get It better
-
That might be one reason why some warned against using it, but I definitely had teachers in middle school and high school that explicitly said not to use it because it could be changed by anyone including people who could be wrong or lying.
-
definitely not incorrect, for sure
-
-
Hmm, interesting. When I was in HS, I would paraphrase Wiki and use their citations in my bibliography 😆
-
And the ability for folks to change it and provide inaccurate sources. It's peer reviewed for the most part and academia wants officially peer reviewed sources.
-
It's also just often completely inaccurate. The standards it uses to cite works make them pretty much useless: any good information on Wikipedia is on there by accident.
-
-
Only if the source checks out
-
Oh man the rightoids came out of the woods for this shower thought.
-
Any argument based on "us vs them" is flawed by default.
-
I always trust the streets. People lie. Governments lie. News lies. But the streets. The streets never lie.
-
Gotta be careful roaming the streets, tho.
-
I been listening to these streets for years man and there’s one thing I’ve learned: streets ain’t sayin shit
-
I do for economic data. I really don't care what funny numbers the White House and shills put out.
-
-
Does anyone know if there is a way to see which wiki articles are edited the most? I don't mean new topics or edits because there's a lot of new info. I mean potential back-and-forth edits where there is disagreement on facts (or one viewpoint denies a fact, etc.).
If that exists, I'd be curious to know what articles they are (obviously probably religion or politics). On the other side, those articles that have remained unedited for a long time are probably pretty rock solid, assuming they also get traffic.*
*I'm literally thinking out loud here and am sure there are many other factors to consider
-
Maybe if you keep refreshing this search wiki filtered by talk
-
Thanks, I think this is effectively the metric I want. Just have to combine it somehow (if possible) with traffic info by page.
-
-
-
Except not really.
-
Lol, everything is sourced.
-
-
No. There are plenty of articles with the "needs citations" tag.
But even of the ones that are? A LOT of people never actually read the sources and you have plenty of wild claims that are not at all supported by their citation. Plenty of "celebrities" have even talked about how it was a huge hassle to get something changed because the lie was cited... with something unrelated.
-
Have you ever looked at the sources? Some pages have some insane blog spam "sources" linked.
-
Lawl, 1) 25% of Wikipedia in English is unsourced
lAwL 2) 77% of Wikipedia is written by 1% of its editors
RaWfL 3) once a source is credited once, it isn't rechecked and can be used as a source on Wikipedia countless times
LmFAo 4) literally anyone saying something does not make it credible or true.
-
-
-
Jokes on you, anything controversial relating to Pakistan and India gets spammed and brigaded hourly.
That being said, its a great resource for finding secondary sources. Even if the sources themselves happen to be biased lol.
-
Anything controversial on any topic especially current events are extremely biased and strictly controlled by editors.
There are countless examples across the site. I won’t mention any because someone will say “that’s not controversial” because they share the same bias as the editor that “owns” the page.
-
Ah yes. The truth is unknowable.
-
-
-
They use what to tell you? Smoke signals? Semaphore?
-
Hidden messages in advertisements
-
The UHBP protocol, obviously. /s
-
-
The same people who told you that now do fact checking on facebook instead
-
- with the exception of any article with an on going feud
-
Huh?
-
Better than Google because at least it tries to fact check but it should be seen as a search engine
-
We should be careful or we will turn it into the Ministry of Truth.
-
Everyone's all over the place on this. There are multiple levels of fact-checking, moderation, contributions, etc. incorpated into Wikipedia. Which is the entire point. Having a decentralized encyclopedia where people collaborate, fact check, curate, and contribute was the design goal. Wikipedia is the exact solution for keeping someone from creating a ministry of truth.
-
My problem with wikipedia is that all the information is being stored in the same website. Since it appears first when you search for anything, it becomes the only way to fact check things for people. Since most won't scroll past wikipedia and just trust it, the information posted there becomes the objective truth. If someone in control of the site wishes to make modifications, and does them properly, he can alter truth.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just a paranoid guy on the Internet, I do believe that wikipedia is doing a lot of good. It's, as you said, a healthy and complete hub of information online. Like the library of Alexandria. It just scares me that there is only one hub like this. There should be equally big libraries of information, to allow contrast.
-
-
-
For a minute I thought this was in c/writingprompts. I don't know what to do with this prompt
-
Post it. Would be fun.
-
I bet you DO know what to do with this prompt. Common' let's hear it :)
-
-
That's kind of sad
-
Wikipedia has the rest of the internet beat in terms of despot admins.
-
Nah wikipedia has been taken over by politically motivated actors. I really enjoyed it when it was relatively agenda free. If you don't believe me go check the talk page of any controversial article.
-
"Taken over" is a little strong. Anyone can edit a page, but you can see the edit history. That doesn't mean wikipedia is compromised. It means you need to be media literate. If there's too many bad faith edits, the article gets reverted and locked.
-
-
Remember the prolific wikipedia contributor who had an extreme fascination with boobs?
Edit: It was a joke people. I wasn't being serious. But yeah, that did happen and there were articles about it for a while.
-
There's thousands of prolific Wikipedia contributors. Writing high quality articles takes a lot of time.
So no
-
It was reasonably big news when it was noticed, so it's not unreasonable that people might remember it. IIRC, the gist of it was one contributor that had historically contributed to a large number of articles added a redirect for every article with breast in the name so you could also access it by replacing breast with titty or boob, so for example, typing titty cancer into the search bar would bring you to the page for breast cancer.
-
-
The Scots guy is a better example, imo. Someone who was trying to contribute in a positive manner but filled the wiki with complete gibberish, as opposed to a troll, of which there many.
-
How does that make his contributions wrong?
-
Gee I don’t know let’s have a look:
George Washington, primarily known for his luscious, balanced, downright patriotic rack, …
… in fall of 1989 when Mikhail Gorbachev moved his staff to Boobyville, Russia, a small town on the border of …
… contended that the solar system is comprised of approximately .0000023% boobs, with the remaining matter distributed largely the same throughout …
It’s getting out of hand I’d say
-
-
-
Hm, I was looking for unhinged Hexbear replies at the bottom, but there aren't any! I guess the defed did good
-
-
He literally can't, it's a freely licensed work that you can copy and modify whenever you want.
-
-
Wikipedia is nefarious as fuck and nobody should trust it.
-
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/tExxkV1Xgzg?si=cqgkEghiy9a9m4aG
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
332 comments