Wikipedia Sucks!
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/

Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=350
Page 2 of 9

Author:  ericbarbour [ Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Wikipedia loves "digerati". But they don't have anything about Tristan Harris, the "conscience of Silicon Valley".

Have some links, Wiki-assholes.
https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-h ... scue-them/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... er/501122/
http://www.afr.com/lifestyle/tristan-ha ... 115-gspq3l
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ebook-tech
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/1690 ... zuckerberg

Vanity website
http://www.tristanharris.com/

His "time well spent" organization
http://humanetech.com/

Harris was also mentioned in this WIRED story about Facebook's idiot handling of "fake news" and paranoia. It tells you a great deal about how the "world's greatest website" actually is used as a shit factory.
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-face ... s-of-hell/

Also note the repeated mentions of Roger McNamee. Remember him?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/18 ... r_mcnamee/


(Edit: someone pointed out that Wikipedia does have an article about Harris's organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Well_Spent
Created in February 2017 by chronic insider and Consumers Union employee Lane Rasberry. Probably because someone told him to do it.)

Author:  ericbarbour [ Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Quite a few obscure TV shows don't have any WP coverage. Here's a good recent example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/progin ... ack-empire

(Meanwhile, their Doctor Who coverage is up to 4,661 articles and files.)

Author:  ericbarbour [ Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

All Human Knowledge! Jimbo, you lie in your teeth!

Wikipedia does not document hundreds of small islands all over the world.
Have a lengthy article about one of them:
https://longreads.com/2018/02/19/is-thi ... the-world/

Author:  ericbarbour [ Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

List of beaches in Hawaii

Less than 25% of the beaches listed have Wikipedia articles. Oohh, but ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE!!!

For that matter, many Hawaiian sites and locations are undescribed on WP.
This place is notorious--except on WMF wikis.
https://www.hawaii-guide.com/kauai/sights/nualolo-kai
https://www.napali.com/coast/nualolo-kai/
https://www.hawaiimagazine.com/content/ ... -kai-kauai
http://cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu/Downloads/s ... ualolo.pdf

Author:  Strelnikov [ Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

ericbarbour wrote:
It's not flying yet, but judging from the many recent mentions in the aviation and Seattle-area press, the Boeing 797 is a certainty.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/20/news/co ... index.html
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... they-hear/
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... sized-jet/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/ ... -airliner/

The only mention of it on Wikipedia is a passing note in the "Middle of the market" article. And a stupid internet hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_w ... ce_concept


Can you name, Eric, off the top off your head how many Wikipedians are airplane buffs? I only know about Russavia.

"The Project" needs a person (better yet a squad) who is into the "boring" world of civil air transport, so that the articles on air transport get updated.....but it won't happen because the number of editors is slowly drifting towards zero.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

It must be a well served area if the turnout in the recent kerfuffle over destination lists, and indeed the turnout in any crash AfD, is anything to go by.

Author:  ericbarbour [ Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Strelnikov wrote:
Can you name, Eric, off the top off your head how many Wikipedians are airplane buffs? I only know about Russavia.

"The Project" needs a person (better yet a squad) who is into the "boring" world of civil air transport, so that the articles on air transport get updated.....but it won't happen because the number of editors is slowly drifting towards zero.

Dozens easily--because there's massive overlap with Military History Wikiproject. Aviation, civil or military, is one thing Wikipedia covers very well on average. And the MH project is also a magnet for OCD fanatics, many of whom become insiders (cough Lokshin cough).

Author:  ericbarbour [ Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

ericbarbour wrote:
Quite a few obscure TV shows don't have any WP coverage. Here's a good recent example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/progin ... ack-empire

(Meanwhile, their Doctor Who coverage is up to 4,661 articles and files.)

A month after I posted the above, an article was created. Perhaps the little snots are starting to watch this forum for their failures? That would be endlessly hilarious.

Okay, little snots, here's another one:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/04/ ... ines-face/
http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a8538 ... t-extinct/
https://next-episode.net/cunk-on-britain/trailer

Author:  ericbarbour [ Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

ericbarbour wrote:
It's not flying yet, but judging from the many recent mentions in the aviation and Seattle-area press, the Boeing 797 is a certainty.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/20/news/co ... index.html
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... they-hear/
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... sized-jet/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/ ... -airliner/

The only mention of it on Wikipedia is a passing note in the "Middle of the market" article. And a stupid internet hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_w ... ce_concept

And months after I posted the above, someone created an article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ne ... e_Airplane

Author:  CrowsNest [ Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

If you're listing TV programmes Wikipedia doesn't have articles on, you will be here a long time.

As anyone with eyes and a brain can deduce, Wikipedia isn't remotely complete, even in the area of popular culture, which many people wrongly assume is one area they do best in. If true, even their best is crap. More likely, it simply isn't true.

There are indeed Wikipediots who like to lurk on fora like this looking for tips on what is missing from their wonderful project. So why give them the chance to show, in a really distorted way, that the Wikipedia model (WP:SOFIXIT) works?

It suffices to tell people that Wikipedia doesn't have a ton of articles on TV programmes that their inclusion standards say they should........
Quote:
Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience.
The above is of course also subject to the general requirement that basic notability be demonstrated, which for television shows would typically be substantive reviews in independent publications.

If people doubt it, it's easy for them to test the theory to anyone's satisfaction, no examples need to be listed here (although before they do, they should be warned, Wikipedia's basic operating model is to get people addicted, and the urge to create an article on something that is missing, is a big part of that). This is another reason not to simply be listing missing articles - it may not be established Wikipediots filling the gaps, but newly ensnared future slaves.

There is one caveat to this rule - if you find missing articles that are about shows nobody in their right mind would be looking up in Wikipedia, then subject to the above cautions, I quite like the idea of lurker Wikipediots wasting their time trying to fix gaps that the vast majority of readers aren't interested in, and which the tiny few that are, wouldn't find anything on the Wikipedia article that a five second Google search wouldn't reveal. This will hopefully distract them from their more usual daily activities, namely polluting knowledge that is actually in wide demand, and generally being dicks to innocent people.

Flatpack Empire certainly seems to be an example of the latter, however I am troubled by the prospect its creator might be an addict in the making, pushed further into that hell by this notification. I say might be, as his history is actually quite odd - just 93 edits spread over six years, and only two in double figures, this program and another TV show, Generation Gifted, coincidentally another BBC Two documentary. Perhaps this shows they have a COI. The relatively good state of the articles might also indicate this account is a sock, someone just goofing off from their main account (or maybe temporarily banned from TV shows, although their work doesn't show signs of problems).

Page 2 of 9 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/