Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.

Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby AndrewForson » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:02 am

Of course there's no article about her. She chose to continue with an unplanned pregnancy, and then to give up racing in order to provide her children with time, energy and stability. That's so old-fashioned -- not the sort of role model progressive Wikipedians look for at all.
User avatar
AndrewForson
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby ericbarbour » Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:04 pm

#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby ericbarbour » Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:19 pm

So why is there no article about the "Committee to Protect California Jobs" pressure group?

The only WP mention is buried in the constantly-editwarred Facebook article....the "CPCJ", whatever it is, has millions of dollars in funding. Thanks to Facebook, Google, and some major ISPs. The Internet industry is no different from any other; they bribe, hire lobbyists, fund pressure groups, run polls and so forth, all to prevent the passage of laws that interfere with their skeezy business methods.

HERE ARE GODDAMN REFERENCES, YOU CHODES

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/maga ... -data.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/californias-n ... in-the-us/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 42494.html
https://www.pymnts.com/facebook/2018/fa ... -act-bill/
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 08964.html
https://gizmodo.com/california-has-48-h ... 1827117016
The tech industry hates the ballot initiative and has poured $2 million into an association, “The Committee to Protect California Jobs,” formed to fight it. Among those who have donated to the anti-privacy cause are Google, Facebook, Amazon, Verizon, Comcast, Cox Communications, AT&T, Microsoft, Uber, advertising associations, and industry groups for people who make and sell cars.
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:29 pm

I spotted today there was no article on a notable ship.

Another example that they're not even good at what some people think, for all their faults, that they're actually good at.

I found all I wanted to know about it on that there internet.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby ericbarbour » Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:10 pm

#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby AndrewForson » Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:31 pm

CrowsNest wrote:I found all I wanted to know about it on that there internet.

And it had exactly the same amount of credibility as a Wikipedia article!
User avatar
AndrewForson
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:46 am

AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:I found all I wanted to know about it on that there internet.

And it had exactly the same amount of credibility as a Wikipedia article!
Hardly. I consulted a mixture of eminently reliable news sources, and certain other sources whose reliability would no doubt be dismissed out of hand by the Wikiepdiots, but for the specific purposes of my query, were perfectly adequate.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby ericbarbour » Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:56 pm

Anyone wanna explain why there is nothing in Wikipedia about Mount Lico?

https://www.topic.com/the-secret-garden
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23


Re: Articles Wikipedia should have--but doesn't.

Postby CrowsNest » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:08 am

Was a good watch.

There'll be an article eventually, Palin is A-list. I was looking at Full Circle for a comparison, and it is remarkably detailed given the show aired before Wikipedia was even a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Circ ... hael_Palin

Tellingly, it is almost entirely just detail of the episodes. I'm sure Drmies will get to it eventually, hacking out all that unnecessary "chit-chat".

There won't be anyone to complain, because all that lovely information was added by one kind IP editor who must have got the box set. In one week in September 2007, they took the article from this......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =153678879

.....to this.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =158837256

This user may or may not have also been the person who registered as "Simpsons 2006" and edited Wikipedia from 2006 to 2009, and they look awfully like a banned Wikipedia editor, making just 400 or so edits, all to articles. Either way, without them, Wikipedia's article on Full Circle would be shit, and so would a few others.

They appear to have tried to create the article "List of countries and territories Michael Palin has travelled to", which the Wikipedians in their wisdom chose to delete for all the usual stupid reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... avelled_to

Even inclusionist DGG dismissed it as "Totally non-encyclopedic."

Well, here's what sounds like an encyclopedic question - how many times has Michael Palin visited North Korea? It's at least twice, as we know from Full Circle (if they could clarify why they have scare quotes around "crossed" the border).

Palin is one of the best broadcasters of this genre the world has ever seen, and therefore it seems like valid human knowledge to have some way of knowing where he has been. Amusingly given that Afd, a search of Palin's biography for "Korea" revealed only mentions of North Korea.

There answer to the question "Where has Palin been?" seems to be, READ ALL THE SHIT WE HAVE ON PALIN AND MAKE YOUR OWN SPREADHSEET, DUMBASS!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... hael_Palin

My answer would be, why would I do that, when I can simply go look at the billion and one websites who have found a lucrative market in hosting the stuff Wikipedia declares to be worthless?
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Content Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest