Wikipedia Sucks!

I added this Daily Mail article as a reference to the page Filet-o-Fish as a reference to support the claim that Australians consider the McDonald's Filet-o-Fish to be a "burger" (unlike for example American English, where the word "burger" has a different definition and Filet-o-Fish would not generally be included in it.) I know Daily Mail is generally deprecated, but I think for this particular kind of fact it (or should I say its Australian edition) is actually quite reliable. Mr248 (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No, and I fail to see why we would use a UK source for a claim about Australian popular culture anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As becomes clear to anyone who actually bothers to read the Mail story in question, it was written by an Australian journalist for the Mail's Australian subsidiary for an Australian audience. Her work, her very existence, is autocorrected out of existence by the Wikipedia cult. She simply doesn't matter. They would quite literally rather put a link to McDonald's corporate website in as a reference.

The Mail ban is bullshit. A very key part of their industrial scale institutionallly supported biases.

HTD.

Hey Wikipediocracy peeps, are you being paid to suck this guy off too?

Funnel the cash via Stephen Harrison is it?

I wouldn't blame you, the money is probably pretty good.

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:16 am

Hey Wikipediocracy peeps, are you being paid to suck this guy off too?

No, he's into high-school girls..

I can't understand how anyone could be against the Daily Mail ban, unless they had been run over by semi-truck, Terminator style, steamrolled and entombed in hot lime slurry, whiplashed by an Al-Qaeda suicide blast, gang-raped by a pack of wallabies, or otherwise subjected to a life-altering traumatic brain injury that has reduced them to a disfigured, slobbering creature who is every bit as revolting and outrageous as a severed pig's head that is overflowing with maggots and botflies.

Wikipedia skepticism is good, but rushing to the defense of MI-6's premier propaganda shit dispensary is not. Even for "ethical" reasons. This was one instance when Wikipedia got it right, and I don't really care about the people behind it. They did a noble deed. Kind of like Christopher Scarver unilaterally executing Jeffrey Dahmer. Zero fucks given.

Carmelo Borg Pisani wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:43 am

..... Kind of like ....

For your mertious service defending the cult of Wikipedia against all natural sense of human dignity, you shall receive their highest honour....



Welcome to the most honorable Order of the Whambo, Micheal.

You truly deserve it.

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:16 am

As becomes clear to anyone who actually bothers to read the Mail story in question, it was written by an Australian journalist for the Mail's Australian subsidiary for an Australian audience. Her work, her very existence, is autocorrected out of existence by the Wikipedia cult. She simply doesn't matter. They would quite literally rather put a link to McDonald's corporate website in as a reference.
The Mail ban is bullshit. A very key part of their industrial scale institutionallly supported biases.

And as you should also point out: if they can make the DM ban stick, next they will try to remove links to various Murdoch-owned publications. I suspect the DM was just a "trial balloon". Wiki-fucks would like nothing better than to evaporate Rupert Murdoch and his screwy family members. Who usually get jobs within the News Corp. beast by automatic virtue of birth. Not "competence".

Eventually there will be no "reliable sources" left and the whole fucking tin can will collapse from sheer link-rust.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 14, 2022 8:31 am

Eventually there will be no "reliable sources" left and the whole fucking tin can will collapse from sheer link-rust.