Crap or questionable articles

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby ericbarbour » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:57 pm

Meanwhile, the "magic encyclothing" still does a very questionable job of covering the history of electronics. I posted something about this on WR seven years ago, and it still hasn't been fixed.

Consider the men who invented the operational amplifier circa WWII. The op-amp was tremendously important to modern electronics and still is used today in all kinds of products. Wikipedia gives them almost no credit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_D._Swartzel_Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_A._Philbrick

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

And this is the part that really disgusts me: Wikipedia also fails to mention Mr. Julie's treatment at the hands of John R. Ragazzini, dean of electrical engineering at Columbia. Because Ragazzini committed one of the most notorious acts of intellectual theft of all time on Julie.
http://www.tayloredge.com/museum/museum/opamp.pdf
When Julie's work on the amplifiers was almost completed, a short while before Philbrick placed his contract, Ragazzini hired two college professors, Robert Randall and Frederick Russell. To Ragazzini's displeasure, Julie taught them about his design. Ragazzini didn't particularly like Julie, Julie reported. He accused him of intellectual arrogance, deprived him of credit for his design and ended his draft deferment.


But by god, Ragazzini won awards. And so his article is longer than the articles of those actual pioneers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Ragazzini
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby The End » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:03 pm

ericbarbour wrote:Wikiproject Military History blows it again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_XI-1430
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-2160_Tornado
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_XH-3130
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_H-2470
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-3420

But, why? Why does the "great encyclo-thing" need long articles about failed aircraft engines from the 1930s? There is already a good catch-all article about the "Hyper Engine" program.

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


The Military History articles used to be some of the best, but even they decay. The WWII articles, for example, are so mired in political and ethnic biases, they balloon to unreadable dissertations. They are unpleasant to read.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"I am a dark bouquet of neuroses..."
- Jerry Holkins, Penny Arcade
User avatar
The End
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby ericbarbour » Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:46 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iceland
There is some literary evidence that monks and the Papar from a Hiberno-Scottish mission may have settled in Iceland before the arrival of the Norsemen.[7] The twelfth-century scholar Ari Þorgilsson's Íslendingabók states that small bells, corresponding to those used by Irish monks, were found by the settlers. No such artifacts have been discovered by archaeologists, however. Some Icelanders claimed descent from Cerball mac Dúnlainge, King of Osraige in southeastern Ireland, at the time of the Landnámabók's creation.

and directly below that
The Landnámabók mentions the presence of Irish monks (the Papar) prior to Norse settlement and states that the monks left behind Irish books, bells and crosiers, among other things. According to the same account, the Irish monks abandoned the country when the Norse arrived, or had left prior to their arrival.

Another source mentioning the Papar is Íslendingabók, dating from between 1122 and 1133. According to this account, the previous inhabitants, a few Irish monks, known as the Papar, left the island since they did not want to live with pagan Norsemen. One theory suggests that those monks were members of a Hiberno-Scottish mission, Irish and Scottish monks who spread Christianity during the Middle Ages. They may also have been hermits.

And I'm supposed to take this article "seriously"?
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby ericbarbour » Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:57 pm

Created in September 2016, and constantly vandalized and protected off-and-on this year:

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

It was posted on Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangerThings ... for_three/

That's probably a good measure of the popularity of a tv show on a streaming site: the vandalism of its WP articles.

In which case, you'd think Stranger Things is one of the Greatest Entertainments Of All Time. The main article is 150k bytes with 174 references. I can guarantee it will continue to expand, and will inevitably be broken up into numerous sub-articles. Bonus: it too is being vandalized regularly. And that hapless brony Masem is patrolling it.
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby ericbarbour » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:04 pm

A perfect example of a worthless stub that also has a recursive link. Click on "dobesilic acid" for endless hilarity.

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

It's been like that since 2012. Only bots and idiots edit it.
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby The End » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:33 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_K ... ar_weapons

It's hard to find a precise list of what weapons were used during the Korean War. The Wikipedia article above makes no sense to me. I know the Soviets gave North Korea and China a variety of equipment, but I'm not finding any evidence about some of the weapons being used by Communist forces such as the SVT-40, the Gewehr 41 and 43.

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

The SKS article is equally confusing saying that Communists used it during the Korean War, yet the list article does not mention it at all. I've done some Googling and found discussion boards about the Korean War denying the SKS was ever used.

I wish Wikipedia would provide its sources. The only source on the list article leads to a 404 error page.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"I am a dark bouquet of neuroses..."
- Jerry Holkins, Penny Arcade
User avatar
The End
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby ericbarbour » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:17 pm

The End wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Korean_War_weapons
I wish Wikipedia would provide its sources. The only source on the list article leads to a 404 error page.

Major original 2006 authors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirIsaacBrock (original creator, blocked for unspecified evil socking!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:King_nothing (teenaged boy who liked weapons, quit editing in 2010)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sus_scrofa (prob. a sockpuppet belonging to a Wikiproject Military History nerd)

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

Good example of pure Military History garbage. They generate loads of content but not all of it is "great content". Remember: enthusiasm is far more important than competence in Wiki-World! Not to mention proper obedience to the shitheads who run it!

One of the major editors of that article was Royalguard11. Remember that story? Requested desysop in 2010 and eventually gave up for "mysterious reasons". Three years before that, someone on WR claimed Royalguard11 was an administrator sockpuppet of SlimVirgin. Or at very least, extremely friendly with SV and her asshole friend Crum375.
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby ericbarbour » Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:31 pm

Clever vandalism of the week. Introduce dozens of spelling errors, and mark it "Corrected spelling errors". It's now 6 days old and counting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =814318949
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby AndrewForson » Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:43 am

I'm surprised there is no infobox mime though.
User avatar
AndrewForson
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Crap or questionable articles

Postby ericbarbour » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:57 pm

Someone eviscerated the "Information pollution" article almost 2 weeks ago--and no one has lifted a finger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =803096722
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

PreviousNext

Return to Content Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests