Wikipedia Sucks!

So, some here may know Wikipedia's front page has a section for displaying the news (top right).

Technically it isn't a news feed, but a place to showcase good articles which have some relevance to significant world events of a current nature. People thinking it is a news feed causes untold problems in the entry selection process, but the farce has played out for years because the Wikipediots are disorganised morons who can't think of a better title, or don't even accept there is a problem.

The issue with this part of their so called encyclopedia is that the Wikipedians who oversee the selection process, are some of the sickest, and thickest, people you will ever discover on the site. And that is saying something, given a lack of intelligence and empathy appears to be one of the criteria used to select and breed Wikipediots.

I'll use one recent example which handily covers both issues very well, but you'll have no trouble finding others on the selection page, that is if you can stand to read that much stupidity for long. It concerns the Miami bridge collapse. You'll have heard of it, because it is international news right now.

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

As you can see, after just three hours of debate, if you can call it that, the Wikipedians concluded there was not a chance that a consensus would emerge to post this - consensus of course being a weighted summation of arguments. So let's examine the arguments.

Firstly, there is a real fucked up thing about this section when it comes to posting about tragedies (which, despite their best efforts, forms a disproportionate amount of their output). I'll just quote them, and let you figure it out.....

the death toll is too low for ITN

I don't feel that a sufficient number of people have died for this to merit posting.

Although there is no written rule, in my experience accidents with low death tolls usually don't make it onto ITN. Our motto is not "if it bleeds it leads." It has to bleed a lot.

Support. Number of fatalities isn’t currently large, but.....

Sick fuckers. Still, they're not totally heartless.....

certainly a tragedy

Prayers for those affected...

Tragic, but.....

although undoubtedly a tragic event, .....

tragic but consensus is almost entirely against posting this event.

Much like a robot trying to simulate what it means to be human, this is a good approximation, but still frighteningly wrong.

Moving on to the issue of intelligence, here's how the Wikipediots dealt with the issue of whether this incident was unusual enough to warrant posting -

trivial accident

ultimately a minor accident at best

Relatively minor incident

things break and people die

As you can see, the Wikipediots put as much intellectual effort into the exercise of demonstrating this is actually not important enough to make the news section of Wikipedia, as you might do at a drive-thru pondering whether to have fries with that. All you can really infer is that, if this assessment of triviality is based on anything at all, it is indeed based on death toll. Nice.

More likely, it is simply blind assertion based on the poster's own personal views of what should and should not be front page news on their precious Wikipedia. As such, if Wikipedia worked as designed, it should carry no weight at all, since the outcome isn't predictable at all, it only depends on who turns up on the day. A quality encyclopedia would be trying to ensure a consistency in their collective editorial decisions - it is not a mistake that most professional institutions achieve this by having a single editor.

The best evidence that this wasn't a trivial incident, is the international nature of the news coverage. These people studiously avoided addressing that. Which is normal - if Wikipedians can't rebut something, they just ignore it and hope the person judging consensus doesn't notice. Theoretically, they're supposed to notice and downgrade accordingly.

Furthermore, deliberate ignorance is against the site's own behavioural rules, and since all participants were informed in advance that the international nature of the news coverage was part of the case for listing, it can be assumed their avoidance of this point was deliberate.

Astonishingly, where the Wikipediots did lower themselves to actually framing their comments on the specifics of the incident, they were eye-wateringly ignorant in their assessment.

If it is a new construction method, glitches or problems are to be expected.

bridges especially new ones tend to have problems within days after they open, take the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge for example, it had problems almost immediately after it opened, and as a result it collapsed several months later.

I can only wonder at the dangerous world these freaks live in, where total collapse of a new structure is a mere "problem" to be expected.

To be clear, as any reasonably intelligent person would be able to figure out, in the developed world at least (and arguably even that is unfair given the now global nature of the construction industry), in places which have established standards for engineering like the USA, catastrophic failure isn't normal or expected, not even for new structures.

As is normal for Wikipediots, they don't even realise when they're contradicting their own arguments (unless there's some other reason for why Tacoma is remembered?).

Absent any higher brain functioning being on display, there was of course some simple guesswork gumming up the works too.....

No long-term impact.

It doesn't mean this accident will be the death of this method. I don't think we even know if the accident was related to the construction method......not generally significant enough based on what we know now.

The latter comment, made by the same person in different places, shows the muddle headed nature of Wikipediots - does he know or doesn't he?

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that a defining quality of a current events section is that it is going to have to post items where there isn't any certainty over what happened, and thus what the impact might be. If that incident can fairly be described as significant, and is the sort of thing that could likely have a wider impact than its immediate effects, then you have to assume readers will benefit from reading the article now. Structures collapsing without warning seems to me to be a slam dunk for that assumption.

This is even more true given the fact that they routinely refuse to post items where all that has happened is a report has been published months if not years down the line, detailing once and for all the reasons and thus impacts. Ironically this is because of the lack of accompanying news coverage to demonstrate significance (but remember, they're insistent the section is not a news ticker).

This is not to say there wasn't already evidence that this particular incident might have the required potential for long term impact and thus significance in the now - it is the first bridge to use self-cleaning concrete, and it is the largest ever (in the US) use of the fast installation technique.

These next comments have to be grouped in a class of stupidity all of their own, as while you can somewhat understand why they were made, they clearly have no bearing on the specific incident due to their astonishing ignorance.....

Just a small bridge.

the bridge was also not fully completed

unfinished bridge.

It being Wikipedia, there was of course also an old favourite technique on display, namely this classic strawman...

We just can't post every fatal accident that garners some short term, even if sensational, news coverage.

If Wikipedia worked as designed, if their conduct rules mattered at all, you'd have to work very hard to avoid being blocked for this sort of deliberately misleading behaviour, which shows an astonishingly high level of disrespect, even beyond the sort seen by those who just casually ignored the nominator's case.

The main strawman here was the idea posting this represents posting every fatal accident that garners coverage. He invented this as a proposition, just so he could knock it down. And given he was saying this a mere five hours after the incident, his claim the coverage was short term has to also be assumed to be a made up point of contention. So all he has here in terms of relevance, is this idea the coverage is sensationalism, and he provides no proof of that. Since Wikipedia doesn't work, you'll not be surprised to learn that the person who delivered this comment, is actually one of their Administrators (the people who do the blocking).

Lastly, in this part of Wikipedia, there is an ever present issue of some weird manifestation of anti-US centrism. Sometimes this is entirely warranted - systemic bias is a well known issue and this section particularly has a problem with being overloaded with items of interest only to USicans.

But the Wikipedians of a reactionary bent in this place take it to ridiculous extremes......and the outcomes are truly perverse, where they are happily cutting off their own nose to spite their face

if this had occurred anywhere else on planet Earth it would be universally greeted with "meh", so ... "meh".

If it happened elsewhere, it would likely not even have an article - we must avoid bias, even if it means letting nominations like this fall to the wayside.

If it were not in the US, it may not even get article talk less of going to main page.

The international nature of the coverage is pretty conclusive proof that certainly if this had happened anywhere else in the entire Anglosphere or western Europe, it would have got an article and thus would have been nominated. That it may not have done so had it happened in say China, or any other non-English speaking country which would be using advanced construction techniques like this, is hardly a compelling reason to say readers of the English language Wikipedia don't need to hear of it.

So there you have it. In this debate, as with all debates on Wikipedia, but something which is particularly marked in this section of it, the people who actually talked sense and addressed the issues at hand in a logical and systemic fashion, were in the minority. By a long way.

Thanks for catching this. It's dead-typical of how the front page is filled out, usually with weirdly random news reports.

And people wonder why Wikinews is so damn dysfunctional. Lot of the same people involved. Wikinews reports are always late and always make you wonder "what the hell is wrong with these people?" Well chief, there is much "autism" here.

(We need a better term than "autism", because these bastards are deeply unstable flakes, and actual autistic people are generally not bad folks and would not run an organization like this. How about "narcissistic ADHD sociopaths" instead? Or perhaps there should be a new psychiatric term to describe the Wikipedian?)

ericbarbour wrote:Thanks for catching this. It's dead-typical of how the front page is filled out, usually with weirdly random news reports.

And people wonder why Wikinews is so damn dysfunctional. Lot of the same people involved. Wikinews reports are always late and always make you wonder "what the hell is wrong with these people?" Well chief, there is much "autism" here.

(We need a better term than "autism", because these bastards are deeply unstable flakes, and actual autistic people are generally not bad folks and would not run an organization like this. How about "narcissistic ADHD sociopaths" instead? Or perhaps there should be a new psychiatric term to describe the Wikipedian?)

Internet addiction coupled with neurotic tendencies imo

I don't think there's much overlap in personnel between ITN and Wikinews (but yes, they share the same traits, since both sites operate on the same addictive principles). Largely because Wiki news only has about two active editors these days. But also because of the ideological divide between the two - half the people who participate at ITN are those Wikipedians who, through either negligence or active will, do not want there to be a separate wiki for (important) news, they see that as the natural role of Wikipedia, and they use ITN to 'showcase' their skill at it - what use is Wikipedia if you can't write about stuff in real time? They don't necessarily want wikinews to die (although some do), they're happy for it to be a forgotten graveyard where editors banned from Wikipedia can write man bites dog type stuff. The other half are those Wikipedians trying to downplay their enthusiasm, and maintain this illusion that ITN isn't about news, just encyclopedic articles of relevance to events of a current nature.

One of today's news items......

The annual Boat Races are held, with Cambridge winning both the men's and women's races.

I just love how The Rambling Man drafted the ticker item on his favourite subject to be as difficult to understand for Americans, and well, anyone who is not British (and quite likely, any British person belonging to the YouTube generation), as possible.*

You wouldn't think this is the same guy who constantly whines at ITN about other people's lack of consideration for the global audience. Still, what would Wikipedia be, if it didn't allow raging man-children like TRM be complete and total hypocrites, as well as complete and total assholes.

His humble brag that what he was presenting to them for consideration at 17.52 UTC was "basically an FA quality article" is as characteristically needy as it is quite ridiculous - an FA is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedic treatment of the subject, which is obviously quite impossible when the subject is a sporting event that had finished just seconds earlier (it started at 17.33, and lasted 18 minutes).

How was he able to even present a complete article so fast, I hear you ask. Why, he was of course adding live updates as the race progressed. Like a sad little addict (and IIRC in flagrant breach of Wikipedia's rules against live updating of sporting event articles).

After his boast, he was of course still scrambling to add information to it throughout the evening, both before and after it was posted to the Main Page. So I guess now it must actually be an FA, no basically about it?

The thick people who inhabit this area of Wikipedia hadn't noticed any of this of course, as they heaped lavish praise on TRM for his excellent and speedy work.

There was of course the obligatory pompous retaliation from TRM the very instant a single (and as it turned out, only) editor dared suggest during the nomination that the Boat Races weren't all that. He can't help himself, even though he knows fine well posting this is always controversial, but also that given it has solid ITN/R status, objections of that nature are totally irrelevant and would be ignored. As such, he didn't actually need to be a dick to every last person who opposes. He just likes it. And so he needlessly trotted out his justification for believing the Boat Races are worthy ITN fodder (I can't decide what would be sadder, that he knows it off by heart, or has a copy saved somewhere).

As said, the Boat Races' valuable ITNR status is solid, the last proposed downgrade being SNOW opposed. But TRM is such a sad little addict about this specific topic, would anyone really be surprised if they found out the IP involved in that last discussion was TRM editing while logged out? Talking to himself even.

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

* - What with TRM being a disgraced admin and all, it was left to that other shitheel Black Kite to actually post it, and since he holds similar views to TRM about Amerricuns, it went up in the exact form TRM specified.

Oppose. We posted George because he is directly in line for the throne, we didn't post Charlotte because she isn't, the same should go for this son. Once George has children, his new brother will be bumped down the line. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "directly in line for the throne". There is the line of succession, and being third is hardly any more significant than being fourth (or fifth). The moron is probably thinking it makes a difference if you have to wait for your parent to die, as opposed to your sibling/s, but of course, that isn't the only way you can become King/Queen, people above you can abdicate, etc. Although as he went on further, it becomes even less clear that he even understands that......

"She/he is not in line for the throne" is absolutely a reason not to post this, as if it was not a royal birth, it would not be in the news at all. It has no consequence to who the head of state of the UK/other nations is(which is why George was posted).

The birth of George had no consequence as to who the of state is. It might do, in about 50 years, but the same can be said of his siblings.

Others also fell into this trap of assuming there is a 'direct line' and a 'normal course of events'. No less than three other people, 30% of the vote, cited 331dot's view as correct.

Strong oppose. George was maybe justified (just about) as he will probably become king some day. Other more minor royal births are not. It would be huge systemic bias if we posted this sort of story about the British royal family but not those of other countries. Just being in the news is not sufficient for ITN; we are not a tabloid newspaper. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I'm a monarchist and this doesn't belong on the main page. While I am very happy for the couple, the birth of princes that have no realistic chance of succeeding to the throne is just not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Add We don't really have a lot of precedent for this sort of thing as monarchies have gone out of style in much of the world and the British Royal Family is typically the only one that gets a lot of global press. But FWIW my feeling is that the birth or death of heirs apparent, that is to say those who in the normal course of events are expected to succeed to a throne, probably should get a blurb. Others who are not expected to succeed usually will not merit any notice here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite sure they didn't do this, but if you sat down and thought about it, there really can't be that much difference between the odds of George becoming King one day, and one of his siblings.

Think about it. If we go by these people's idea of the normal course of events, which as mentioned above hasn't happened like that even within living memory, then for just George to become King, first, we have to have a monarchy post-Elizabeth. Then Charles has to not fuck it up, in his reign of most likely ten years at least. Then William has to want to do it, and for a good forty years you would surmise. Then, assuming he is still alive and has had an uncontroversial life, the middle aged George has to want to do it. Only after all that, will we see a King George the whatever number he is.

So it seems pretty fucking obvious the odds of Charlotte or Louis ascending instead, or perhaps even after him, since George may well be infertile due to the fallout from World War III, are not so remote as George himself.

The sensible, non-ignorant, reasons to support this were no different to George - massive worldwide attention and a change to the top 5 order of the line of succession. The reasons to oppose were the same too - just another birth of a celebrity child, which while newsworthy, has no real significance to the world of today, and an extremely unclear significance to the world of the future (it's hard to even predict the level of domestic or international significance George would have if he even becomes King - it was only very recently confirmed that Charles, if he becomes King, would also be the Head of the Commonwealth, assuming it is even a thing when the time comes).

What these people ironically don't seem to get at all, is that the monarchy wouldn't have somehow stopped being a thing if George had never been born, and Kate proved to be barren. That's the whole damn point of having a line of succession, it can go sideways and even back up before going down again, too. And has done, in living memory. Third is no more important than fourth or fifth, and while being second is arguably a pretty big fucking deal, it can no longer be assumed even they are somehow odds on to be the next monarch.

It's not like they have any excuse for being so ignorant, they had Wikipedia open in their browser as they were saying this crap. Wikipedia is rubbish, but even it doesn't mention the "direct line" or "normal course of events". It even has reasonably accurate pages on probability and the power/influence of the UK monarch, or at least accurate enough to allow their reader to be able to post a sensible view on this issue.

Dumb fuckers. Off with their heads.

CrowsNest wrote:It's not like they have any excuse for being so ignorant, they had Wikipedia open in their browser as they were saying this crap. Wikipedia is rubbish, but even it doesn't mention the "direct line" or "normal course of events". It even has reasonably accurate pages on probability and the power/influence of the UK monarch, or at least accurate enough to allow their reader to be able to post a sensible view on this issue.

Only a matter of time before Wikipedia content is used as "justification" for a political coup or a succession.....accurate content or not....

I'm just watching an old episode of Aircrash Investigations, on Qantas flight 32. It makes it pretty clear, if common sense wasn't enough of an indicator, that inflight engine failures where pieces are coming off at high speed, with only the reinforced engine casing there to stop them, are a big deal, and if you survive, especially in cases where debris isn't contained, it really is only due to luck - as well depriving you of an engine, it damages so many systems, and inevitably leads to a fuel leak because the whole wing is basically the tank, that even simply landing safely is open to question. To quote the Qantas pilot, the situation even after they had come to a stop, was just as grave as when they were in the air.

I had remembered there was a recent example in the US, so I went looking to see what these idiots manning the ITN desk had to say on it. Turns out it was Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, and on that occasion someone actually died, being sucked into a broken window.

It did not get posted, and you would not believe some of the opposition comments.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 18#(Closed)_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380

Oppose - one person died. Not notable as a result. To say "highly unusual, hence notable" isn't really a tenable argument, viz Man Dies After Getting Head Stuck in Movie Theater Seat. I doubt anyone would say that's worthy of a blurb. Banedon (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose. A minor accident with few casualties and no broader implications. Weak opposition only because we could do with some turnover in blurbs. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. An unfortunate accident, but a minor one. No foul play appears to be involved, just a random mechanical failure due in part to worn parts. I don't think the slow news cycle is a sufficient reason to make an exception. ZettaComposer (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Things like this happen.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Minor mechanical failure, little impact and virtually no fatality. Not really In the news . –Ammarpad (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose similar to the nomination made regarding the Youtube Headquarters Shooting earlier this month, this nomination has all ready attracted a number of bias from both sides of the argument, with one side stating this is “unusual” and “major”, while the other arguing that this is “minor” and “short-term”; this is the kind of nomination that spells trouble, especially if it concerns only a single fatality. Python Dan (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Python Dan, this is an example of when systematic bias put an event at a dangerous level. Besides, as unusual as this accident is in nature, this is nothing more than another aircraft accident. Kirliator (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose minor event, if it led to anything changing in the world of aviation it might be of interest, but I can't see that happening, a one-off catastrophic engine failure is just as Martinevans123 notes really, a chance in a million, and with the number of flights per day, there was always going to be a chance it'd happen some time. And it did. This would be a far better candidate for DYK as how well the pilot did getting such a broken aircraft down without further fatalities. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Kirliator and TRM, a minor aircraft accident at best with almost no chance of long-term impact. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I think we should avoid posting aircraft disasters with low death tolls, otherwise, ITN would be flooded with such nominations. SamaranEmerald (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose – Freak accident. Although one passenger died, it's of scant broader significance. Sca (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - minor incident in terms of fatalities. Any lasting notability or impact will arise due to potential changes in airline policy, but to post on these grounds would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the crash is truly so intriguing, take the (admittedly excellent) article to DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose At the risk of sounding callous, things break and people die. In the grand scheme of things this is a really minor accident. (Thank God.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as noted above, a minor incident with probably very little lasting impact. Lepricavark (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Airplane accidents are not uncommon, even in the US, and often result in more deaths than this. Though airline accidents are rare in the US, in my opinion that distinction does not increase significant enough for a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This makes it pretty clear, if the bridge case I opened the thread with wasn't sufficient, that these people are only determining how minor an accident is, either by the death toll, which is just sheer chance, or out of their own basic ignorance of how to measure importance/significance for a given incident. In short, they are utter morons.

Unsurprisingly, contrary to the learned opinions of these scholars, it is already becoming clear that this incident wasn't just a random occurance, there is a link to other incidents, and there will be changes made to procedures, if only to shorten the inspection period on this particular engine type. Because, and it isn't remotely clear these fuckwits ever really understood this - everything about aviation safety is geared toward making sure the incidence of an in flight engine failure is zero. Can it be achieved? Likely not. But we have certainly got to the point where if it does, it is a big deal, something an encyclopedia which, in other aspects, certainly seems like it is trying to compete with sites like the Aviation Safety Network, would and should consider an event of worldwide significance.

CrowsNest wrote:

Oppose - one person died. Not notable as a result. To say "highly unusual, hence notable" isn't really a tenable argument, viz Man Dies After Getting Head Stuck in Movie Theater Seat. I doubt anyone would say that's worthy of a blurb. Banedon (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose. A minor accident with few casualties and no broader implications. Weak opposition only because we could do with some turnover in blurbs. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. An unfortunate accident, but a minor one. No foul play appears to be involved, just a random mechanical failure due in part to worn parts. I don't think the slow news cycle is a sufficient reason to make an exception. ZettaComposer (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Things like this happen.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Minor mechanical failure, little impact and virtually no fatality. Not really In the news . –Ammarpad (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose similar to the nomination made regarding the Youtube Headquarters Shooting earlier this month, this nomination has all ready attracted a number of bias from both sides of the argument, with one side stating this is “unusual” and “major”, while the other arguing that this is “minor” and “short-term”; this is the kind of nomination that spells trouble, especially if it concerns only a single fatality. Python Dan (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Python Dan, this is an example of when systematic bias put an event at a dangerous level. Besides, as unusual as this accident is in nature, this is nothing more than another aircraft accident. Kirliator (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose minor event, if it led to anything changing in the world of aviation it might be of interest, but I can't see that happening, a one-off catastrophic engine failure is just as Martinevans123 notes really, a chance in a million, and with the number of flights per day, there was always going to be a chance it'd happen some time. And it did. This would be a far better candidate for DYK as how well the pilot did getting such a broken aircraft down without further fatalities. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Kirliator and TRM, a minor aircraft accident at best with almost no chance of long-term impact. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I think we should avoid posting aircraft disasters with low death tolls, otherwise, ITN would be flooded with such nominations. SamaranEmerald (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – Freak accident. Although one passenger died, it's of scant broader significance. Sca (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - minor incident in terms of fatalities. Any lasting notability or impact will arise due to potential changes in airline policy, but to post on these grounds would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the crash is truly so intriguing, take the (admittedly excellent) article to DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose At the risk of sounding callous, things break and people die. In the grand scheme of things this is a really minor accident. (Thank God.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as noted above, a minor incident with probably very little lasting impact. Lepricavark (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Airplane accidents are not uncommon, even in the US, and often result in more deaths than this. Though airline accidents are rare in the US, in my opinion that distinction does not increase significant enough for a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This makes it pretty clear, if the bridge case I opened the thread with wasn't sufficient, that these people are only determining how minor an accident is, either by the death toll, which is just sheer chance, or out of their own basic ignorance of how to measure importance/significance for a given incident. In short, they are utter morons.

Heh. I would expect no less from a project that is declining, and lying about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Hori ... 0_incident

Someone manages to steal a medium sized passenger aircraft from a major US airport and successfully commit suicide by crashing it.

It is nominated to ITN, and the thick bastards universally take the view it is more suitable for "Did You Know"......

Oppose this is perfect DYK material. Once it's expanded beyond the current stub state. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Fully agree with The Rambling Man Openlydialectic (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - seems more apt at DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this is interesting, but not the sort of thing for ITN, more along the lines of DYK material. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – Per previous – sgt snow. Sca (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of fucked up in of itself. DYK is where they put silly April's Fools jokes and tedious factoids about potatoes etc, so how messed up do you have to be to think that's where the suicide by aircraft stories go?

This incident has literally made headline news around the world. It is a scary reminder of how easy it is to deliberately crash planes big enough to kill hundreds of people if you choose the right way to steal it and the right place to crash it, which is kind of a serious issue these says, as the presence of two USAF fighter jets in short order should really tip these idiots off to.

Something tells me they weren't there to pass on their grave concerns for his evident mental state. The subsequent investigation will, I imagine, look at how quickly they responded, and if they could have done anything if the pilot had chosen a different course, perhaps to fly into the Space Needle. Which is only 12 miles south of the airport.

If all that wasn't enough to kick their brains into gear, ITN was created as a way to quickly give people information about 9/11. They seem to have forgotten that little piece of their history.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please bear with them, they are a bit mentally challenged.