Page 10 of 12

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

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:04 pm
by ericbarbour
This article has existed since 2009, and is STILL full of red links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... ral_arches

Bbb23

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:13 pm
by CMAwatch
Bbb23 also wiped out Handroid7's entire library of content.

Dozens of good articles and legitimate redirects!

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

Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:36 pm
by ericbarbour
WikiNerds love to mushmouth about video games and post excessive useless details about games on WP. This has been going on since 2002 and shows no signs of slowing down. You can tiptoe thru Long Pages for some examples. The gaming Wikiproject is up to 82,000 articles and files.

One thing Wikipedia says nothing about: the wildly popular / slightly pedophilic/ deeply disgusting porno game Monster Girl Island. Google it. Apparently it's a big hit with the kind of fat incels who infest the online world. I only heard about it because people have been posting memes on Facebook; it's prob. obscure for good reason. Try searching YouTube for "reviews". Or:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/943700/reviews/

Not disturbed yet? There's a subreddit--where they argue about how much money the developer is making.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mgi/

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

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:20 am
by ericbarbour
They CONTINUE to do a miserable job of covering reality tv series. Like African geography, if it's on an obscure sports channel or a streaming service, nerds don't care.

Have another one (it's 2 seasons old) not mentioned anywhere on en-WP. I'd list more but it's pointless.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7614908/

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

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:48 am
by ericbarbour
There is nothing about "Deadnet", one of the most notorious "swatting" groups in history and having connections to Atomwaffen (about which WP does have a very very long article). Nor about John Kelley, Deadnet member who was just arrested for trying to swat numerous people. Krebs has been writing about these little bastards for YEARS, but Wikipedia doesn't bother to mention any of the story.

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/01/all ... more-50137
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/13/2106 ... n-virginia
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu ... story.html

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

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:20 am
by ericbarbour
Anyone for an obscure African language that does not exist according to en-WP?

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/lake-kivu-rwanda

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

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:07 pm
by ericbarbour
Today the shitpedia got an article they really should have had two years ago......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat

Law enforcement, and certain conspiracy cranks, had known about EncroChat for years prior. Only when the cops bust them (and the headlines scream) do we get "content" from the "greatest encyclopedia in the world".

Wikipedia only exists at the "pleasure" of corporate media. There WAS coverage of EncroChat prior to today's busts. No one noticed.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... e-15652444

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northern ... k-1980136/

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... es-2883942

BTW, someone asked about EncroChat on Bruce Schneier's blog.....FOUR YEARS AGO.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/ ... l#c6740244

And a conspiracy vlogger made a video warning people not to trust EncroChat. Also four years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Pv9CU1mjE

This 2017 video claims to show how to crack an EncroChat phone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUdugZjTPho

Do a Reddit search if you want to see more old threads.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:51 pm
by sashi
Probably not the point of the thread, but
  • Wikipedia:WikiRat is a fail. Maybe the cat killed it and it floated down the Yellow river past the cotton fields...
  • Wikipedia:NOTUS isn't policy, believe it or not.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:58 pm
by ericbarbour
's okay with me. Just keep piling garbage on--someday someone will notice and take it seriously.

Here's another: remember the McCloskey incident in St. Louis two weeks ago? Sure was a lot of media attention, eh? Memes for weeks too. Screaming matches on Facebook and Twitter. You name it.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/mark-pat ... uns-video/
https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-st-lou ... s-attorney (predictable Fox nonsense)
https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-coup ... 7bfc8.html
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -visited-/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... protesters
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/co ... e-n1232400
https://abcnews.go.com/US/white-st-loui ... d=71510735

It ended up in the NY Times. Thanks, Donald!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/p ... sters.html

Conservative media tried to claim one of the protestors was threatening the McCloskeys with a gun. Lie.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... microphon/

Thanks to foot-dragging by local police (fyi the McCloskeys are prominent local attorneys and Patricia is a big wheel in the Missouri Bar Association, and therefore damn well should have known better), no legal action was taken until today.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glob ... SKCN24C0L3

They are a LOT crazier than you think. Almost "vexatious litigants".
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... dd287.html

So tell me, does this add up to WP:NOTABILITY or not?

Why is there no Wikipedia article about this shitshow? Wiki Loves Shitshows. Especially when it comes to conservative figures (even relative national-level nobodies like the McCloskeys) acting wacko in public. So far as I can tell, none of their "valued editors" attempted to create an article. Can't find any discussion in noticeboards or AFC, or anywhere else.

However, someone DID wedge a snotty note--into a little-noticed article about the McCloskeys' historic neighborhood. Which otherwise has fuck-all to do with the McCloskeys waving guns around. Started out on June 30th by inserting info about the streets in the area being privately owned, a local peculiarity. Then in came the sniping about the McCloskey tantrum. Sad!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_ ... and_Places

Boomers. Bah.
Wikipedians. Double bah.

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

Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:19 am
by ericbarbour
need another "notability thing"? How's this?

https://www.stlmag.com/design/a-decades ... zzo-to-it/