Wikipedia Sucks!

A perfect example of the idiocy of Wikipedia contribution. Found in the "Propane" article, under "History"......

Hank Hill is often credited with popularizing propane to the general American public as a reliable fuel source for many things, such as grilling. He sells propane and propane accessories for Strickland Propane in the show King of the Hill. The show's portrayal of the propane industry is looked upon favorably by said industry. [14]

That's Wikipedia: cartoons are reality!
And who stuck that shit in? An IP address, in September. I would count this as successful "subtle vandalism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =979468343

(Update: three days after I posted this, someone fixed it.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =991273519

I swear to you that my dog and I sell propane and propane accessories.

This was an epic triumph of trolling.
Or maybe not, idiocy

https://youtu.be/9FA__4fLBos

Btw

Britanica gives the subject of propane three meaty paragraphs
Vs wikipedia which weighs in with fourty-two +/- paragraphs

Britanica starts its first sentence with a description of propane. The last sentence is the conclusion " it has great importance as a fuel for domestic and industrial uses and for internal-combustion engines."

Wikipedia has lots of jibber jabber. How long will my change last? Will it result in a ban?


Propane (/ˈproʊpeɪn/) is a three-carbon alkane with the molecular formula C3H8. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure, but compressible to a transportable liquid. A by-product of natural gas processing and petroleum refining, it is commonly used as a fuel. Discovered in 1857 by the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot, it became commercially available in the US by 1911. Propane is one of a group of liquefied petroleum gases (LP gases). The others include butane, propylene, butadiene, butylene, isobutylene, and mixtures thereof. Propane is used as a fuel in domestic and industrial applications and in low emissions public transportation

If you search for "deepest swimming pool" on Wp this is what you get.

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

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, Y-40 is no longer the world's deepest pool. Oopsie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hofsW-M9Rzw
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-s ... r-BB1bjdi0
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-55034540

But that's not all, folks!
Wikipedia has this article, about an even-deeper pool that isn't finished. Said article smells like paid editing to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Abyss

Just before I posted the above, a mention of Deepspot was added to the article. But there's still no article for Deepspot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =940249312

Here's a thought:

If you are editing any WP article, and some officious jerk starts lecturing you about "references", ask the asshole about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisti/De- ... Wilderness

Few references here, not searchable under synrm <-the main keyword

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reluctance_motor

wexter wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 2:21 pm

Few references here, not searchable under synrm <-the main keyword
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reluctance_motor

Because there's no practical way to search for such articles other than to write a VERY complicated script, no one has any idea how many such poorly referenced articles exist on en-wp right now. I figure easily 20,000 or more--possibly a lot more. So there is plenty of ammo in any referencing dispute.

Everything on Wikipedia is fatally flawed.
It's a mosh pit of "stuff"
A cult of KoolAid

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... of_Brevity
The purpose of factual, encyclopedic writing is to impart useful information ... that uses as little of the reader's time as possible.

Britanica

J.K. Rowling, in full Joanne Kathleen Rowling, (born July 31, 1965, Yate, near Bristol, England), British author, creator of the popular and critically acclaimed Harry Potter series, about a young sorcerer in training.

6 total paragraphs and a bibliography
Main point in the first sentence in less than 20 words

Wikipedia 30 words, main point, and then and then and then and then

Joanne Rowling CH, OBE, HonFRSE, FRCPE, FRSL (/ˈroʊlɪŋ/ ROH-ling;[1] born 31 July 1965), better known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British author, philanthropist, film producer, television producer and screenwriter. She is best known for writing the Harry Potter fantasy series, which has won multiple awards and sold more than 500 million copies,[2][3] becoming the best-selling book series in history.[4] The books are the basis of a popular film series, over which Rowling had overall approval on the scripts[5] and was a producer on the final films.[6] She also writes crime fiction under the pen name Robert Galbraith.

About 80 paragraphs later:

Eventually this goes into a kerfuffle about transgenderism

wexter wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:50 pm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... of_Brevity

Which is not an "official policy" and ever if it were, no one would pay attention to it....

Wikipedia 30 words, main point, and then and then and then and then

Joanne Rowling CH, OBE, HonFRSE, FRCPE, FRSL (/ˈroʊlɪŋ/ ROH-ling;[1] born 31 July 1965), better known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British author, philanthropist, film producer, television producer and screenwriter.
About 80 paragraphs later:
Eventually this goes into a kerfuffle about transgenderism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_J._K._Rowling
The work of a variety of anonymous sockpuppets, as usual. Because she must be humiliated, as usual. For not sucking up to the LGBTQ+- rage squad which Wikipedia has "enjoyed" since its earliest days. This is when the "victim complex" situation starts to dominate WP content.

When said article was first created in 2018, it said nothing about trans people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =654645710

Lol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862820404

If someone "deemed notable" for a WP bio says ANYTHING of a less-than-sweet-loving nature about any gay or trans people in public, it will be prominently featured on English Wikipedia within days. And then there will be editwarring. Guaranteed.

(If you think this is bad, you should see the treatment that critics of Israel received. Until recent years, when the editwarring over it was abandoned by most of the pro-Israel shills. There are literally too many Arbcom cases and RFAs and RFCs to count.)

Looking at any article you will find extremely poor content and questionable factuality. I think their main method that should be used to attack Wikipedia is to discourage donations from small sources.

I looked at the books and Wikipedia is consistently running millions of dollars of surplus per year which continuously accrues into surplus. As far as I can tell they are funded on excess from large corporations and they are being managed by the most entrenched corporate and political interests that exist on the globe.

Wikipedia seems immune to piranha attack based on content because no direct structure is responsible for content. There is a direct structure which is accountable to funding and that's the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Wikimedia Foundation disavows any and all responsibility to the platform it's content, its participants, and it's own conduct which has been firewalls behind an indirect and convoluted business structure.

Me I've been forget fighting against the 12,000 zealots who are engaged into a mind f****** cult.

Not only was the MediaFLO system a joke and a massive flop......the Wikipedia article about it is a shredded mess:

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