View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:18 pm




Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Crap or questionable articles 
Author Message
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1443
Reply with quote
I suppose this fanboy shit was inevitable

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

Remember: THIS ISN'T EVEN AN ACTUAL CHARACTER IN ANY MARIO GAME (besides, Wikipedia has hosted this list of fan crap since 2015)


Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:07 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1443
Reply with quote
There has already been a pair of comedic books about Wikipedia's crappy writing and questionable content. Books very few people noticed, and most of whose contents are already dated anyway.

But the shitty writing continues to fester on the "magical encyclopedia of Wiki-Luv". What possible excuse is there for this? Grammar-fixing bots do exist, where the fuck are they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larch
Quote:
At gen. Larix belong to the trees that go further north than all, reaching in the North America and Siberia the tundra and polar ice. The larches are pioneer species not very demanding towards the soil and they are very long-lived trees.


Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:37 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1443
Reply with quote
On real "news sites", Stan Lee's death was a minor item. Far more important items dominate the news today, including the "minor fact" that a large chunk of California is burning up and killing people.

But on nerd sites, you get this. INCLUDING WIKIPEDIA.
Attachment:
stan_lee_frontpage_WP.jpg
stan_lee_frontpage_WP.jpg [ 75.59 KiB | Viewed 773 times ]


RIP Mr. Lee, sorry that you became a "dork icon".


Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:46 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1443
Reply with quote
One would think that Metheny's article would be more detailed, given how lurid his crimes were. Online information is plentiful.

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


Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 351
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
On real "news sites", Stan Lee's death was a minor item. Far more important items dominate the news today, including the "minor fact" that a large chunk of California is burning up and killing people.

RIP Mr. Lee, sorry that you became a "dork icon".


Well he is basically credited with inventing "Marvel", including the supremely popular 30 billion dollar movie franchise based on the characters he had a major role in creating. I suppose that he is up there with George Lucas in the realm of fan icons. I have a feeling he didn't make as much cash as Lucas when Disney bought up his creations though.

Now we are fated to endure the rolling triple franchise, as Disney releases I think at least six half billion dollar movies a year in the form of Star Wars sequel, blockbuster superhero movie, oldie Disney remake, and then a Star Wars spinoff, minor superhero movie, and another oldie Disney remake...

ad infinitum

Eg. Star Wars 7, Avengers 4, Cinderella 3, Star Wars 7 1/2, Spiderman 8, Lion King 2, Star Wars 8, Avengers 5, something like Aladdin 2 .... etc (I probably have these in the wrong order but you get the idea).

I am sure the Disney people must be so happy with their unstoppable cash machine. ;)

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.


Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:27 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 351
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
One would think that Metheny's article would be more detailed, given how lurid his crimes were. Online information is plentiful.

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


Amazingly he didn't even have an article until a year after he died.

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.


Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:29 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1443
Reply with quote
Dysklyver wrote:
ericbarbour wrote:
On real "news sites", Stan Lee's death was a minor item

Well he is basically credited with inventing "Marvel", including the supremely popular 30 billion dollar movie franchise based on the characters he had a major role in creating. I suppose that he is up there with George Lucas in the realm of fan icons. I have a feeling he didn't make as much cash as Lucas when Disney bought up his creations though.

Please, he fell into the "MCU" business blindly. Remember that Marvel declared bankruptcy in 1996, a few months after Marvel Studios was created. They then proceeded to sell off the film rights for assorted major franchise IP to whichever studio would take it. So Fox got the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Blade and Daredevil. Columbia/Sony got Spider-Man, Universal got the Hulk and Namor (and did shit-all with them apart from the weird 2003 Hulk film that critics hated) and the now-dead Artisan Entertainment got the Avengers and a few other items. Incredible chaos ensued. Some of the results (the early X-Men and Blade movies for Fox and the Spider-Man films for Sony) did fairly well. Things didn't really start to roll until the first Iron Man film appeared in 2008; the next year, Marvel Entertainment was bought by Disney, who correctly smelled a big fat buck and started pumping it like mad. Prior to that Marvel Entertainment Corp. was essentially a minor shitshow.

Stan Lee was called all kinds of things, but "savvy businessman" did not seem to be one of them. All that dealmaking seems to be the work of Avi Arad and Ike Perlmutter (who is an epic asshole). Stan was mostly "along for the ride" as a "public figure". It was an extremely messy business and you can read a detailed but badly-organized (AS USUAL) version of it on Wikipedia. THAT is not what I would call "good management". Whole lotta insane over a mere comic book company.

BTW, Marvel Cinematic Universe must be a very important thing, because its article is presently 243k bytes with 393 references. Nerd-A-Pedia.


Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 351
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
BTW, Marvel Cinematic Universe must be a very important thing, because its article is presently 243k bytes with 393 references. Nerd-A-Pedia.


If you think that's bad, take a look at the humongous pile of nerd-info rejected by Wikipedia that ended up in Wikia:

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Marvel_Database
http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_Wiki

(there are two for some unfathomable reason)

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.


Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:06 pm
Posts: 14
Reply with quote
Marvel.wikia is for ALL things Marvel, MCU is only for the film universe, much narrower scope allowing for more elaboration and freedom in emphasizing those things (and not needing a bunch of universe-designation parenthesis).

You see the same thing for DC v DCAU v Batman v Batman TAS.


Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:39 pm
Profile WWW
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1443
Reply with quote
All that shit about women in technology, all those "edit-a-thons", etc. generated much "publicity". But there continues to be some question of how much "real change" it produced in the twisted little Wikiverse. It produced happy-love-Wiki publicity--the content still has issues.

Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berezin

fails to mention an important computing pioneer

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

whose still-rather-short and poorly written article was not created until 2014......by an SPA who did nothing else (paid? family member? we might never know)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Libelle77

Maybe you'd like to ask a Wiki-Fuck why these articles are so badly written and don't mention Berezin or her company at all? Nor several other pioneering word processing systems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_proc ... nic_device)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor

For that matter, if Redactron was a "pioneer", why isn't there an article about the company?


Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:14 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.