Page 16 of 20

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:54 am
by ericbarbour
I've run across an article that is vandalized frequently (not unusual); and said vandalism often lasts for months or years (very unusual). I suspect the comedians (?) who work for it have been editing this article.

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

SD did in fact go offline several months ago. All new content is being posted to a YT channel, which few people seem to know about....exactly the sort of gag Super Deluxe would have pulled.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeJLx_ ... oDHhJeMe9g

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:44 am
by ericbarbour
Been watching this article for almost TEN YEARS. it's slowly getting longer, but I swear the writing is getting worse. Read the whole thing to get the "full Stupid Effect".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulated ... transistor

Some of it thanks to this freak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... lion_power

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:04 am
by ericbarbour
Was saving this for the forum, because lol
Screenshot_2019-11-19 Little Big (band) - Wikipedia.png
Screenshot_2019-11-19 Little Big (band) - Wikipedia.png (302.01 KiB) Viewed 1674 times

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:36 am
by ericbarbour

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:17 pm
by ericbarbour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_circle_of_Vana-Vigala

O RLY

Spergs love Wikipedia, even spergs from Estonia. (I would be afraid to examine the Estonian-language WP after seeing things like this for many years.)

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:21 am
by Abd
The problem with the ice-circle article is? Thin, to be sure, but there is better coverage in the referenced articles. Yeah, I'm a bit suspicious. about that old photo with people standing on an ice circle (in the oldest reference). The real problem here is that there is an article Ice Circle. So this article is redundant and too specialized. Merge.

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:16 am
by ericbarbour

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:39 am
by Strelnikov
I feel like Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds: "NNNNEEEEEERRRRDDDDSSS!!!"


Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:28 pm
by ericbarbour
Alison Morris did not have a Wikipedia article. Until yesterday, when an unfortunate on-air stutter triggered the "NEED" by "certain valued Wikipedians" to shit on her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... son_Morris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Morris#Controversy

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:39 pm
by Abd
Haters. Whether or not she should have an article or not, the incident might eventually be notable. And it also demonstrates how easy it is to collect 100,000 knee-jerk haters in one place. Give a hater a "good cause" they will leap at the chance to "hate in a good cause," i.e., anti-racism. But hate is hate and is the real enemy, whether racist hatred (obviously harmful) or anti-racist hatred (more subtly and deeply harmful, creating reactive response that delays the end of racism).

Recentism. For very good reasons, an encyclopedia would not cover a topic until there has been time for evaluation and analysis to settle. It's bad enough that media sources, so vulnerable to "scoops" and sensationalism, came to be considered reliable. The better interpretations of policy would require a persistence of coverage, with variety, so that balance can be achieved.

A stub on her would probably be in order. BLP policy should more clearly specify that transient impressions would be covered, if at all, with high care. Nakers. If she meant to say the N word, she pronounced it very badly, so this is all evil interpretation. Her explanation makes complete sense, getting tongue-tied between Knicks and Laters, i.e., Knakers.

The references for the article show a severe balance problem.