Blog post: The US-Afghan War article edits page....

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Blog post: The US-Afghan War article edits page....

Post by Strelnikov » Wed Aug 25, 2021 5:45 pm

aka Raw Data: Wikipedians Editing the "War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)" Article

http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.c ... ar-in.html

Only 10 views via TrueWikiInaction on Reddit.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Blog post: The US-Afghan War article edits page....

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:49 pm

I will post a couple of comments there.

Just calling it as it was originally, "War in Afghanistan", is a bit crude, for a 20 year "multi-command police action blahblah", roughly similar to the Vietnam mess. Albeit this was longer and uglier. LOT of wars in Afghanistan in the past 5000+ years and this one isn't very "special". It ended in a similar way to many others as well--the Soviets gave up, the British tried THREE TIMES and gave up, etc. etc. You can torture yourself by trying to read all of this if you like. It is not well written or organized but then, it's a bloody Wikipedia article about a deeply anarchic history. Typical of the conflicts of the northern Indian region/central Asia in general.

Civil war and foreign invasions constitute the Afghan "national sport". With added constant meddling by Pakistan in recent years. Prove me wrong.

That article is now 271k bytes. Nerdboys love them some military action baby. And it shrank--in 2018 it was almost 400k bytes.

And here's the joke: the article was created on 5 November 2001, making it one of Wikipedia's oldest. This was the second edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... did=299829

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Blog post: The US-Afghan War article edits page....

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:47 am

Wikipedia.....
In September 2014, President Obama acknowledged that the US underestimated the rise of the Islamic State and overestimated the Iraqi military's ability to fight ISIL.
CBS.....
President Obama acknowledged that the U.S. underestimated the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also called ISIL) and overestimated the ability of the Iraqi military to fend off the militant group in an interview that aired on 60 Minutes.
Oh wow, what would the world do without such a valuable resource? :oops:

At least they got it factually accurate. But it hardly jumps out of the Iraq War article as the of the most significant lessons to be learned from that very recent page of world history. Almost a footnote.

Pretty sweet gig it seems, being US President, for a Dem. You can first ignore and then bullshit the American people when called to account for an act of monumental incompetence, and nothing happens.

Not a violent mob intent on rescuing democracy from a tyrant in sight. Nor an impeachment.

Funny that.

And you can't even vote him out for another three years, because Parchment Rules. Yay!

Biden's Wikipedia biography will always make him look like a saint, and Trump's biography will always make him look like Satan incarnate. And the rest of Wikipedia will always reflect that innate bias. A systemic bias.

Larry is right, Wikipedia is biased, a thoroughly American take on an "encyclopedia", and anyone who denies it, needs to take one of the fifty billion guns in America, and blow their own stupid brains out.

Into the sea with you already.

HTD.

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: Blog post: The US-Afghan War article edits page....

Post by Strelnikov » Sun Sep 05, 2021 3:19 am

Pretty sweet gig it seems, being US President, for a Dem. You can first ignore and then bullshit the American people when called to account for an act of monumental incompetence, and nothing happens.

Not a violent mob intent on rescuing democracy from a tyrant in sight. Nor an impeachment.

Funny that.

And you can't even vote him out for another three years, because Parchment Rules. Yay!

Biden's Wikipedia biography will always make him look like a saint, and Trump's biography will always make him look like Satan incarnate. And the rest of Wikipedia will always reflect that innate bias. A systemic bias.
Biden grew to hate the US war in Afghanistan, even though he voted for it in 2001. People who know Biden's history in the Senate know that he is the ULTIMATE insider and deeply in the pocket of the Delaware insurance companies*. You can blame him for the US student loan disaster, AND he has terminal "foot in the mouth" disease; he's been fumbling public events for decades. At the same time, the US-Afghan War was the endless conflict that was the "stepchild war" during the Bush II years (because they really wanted Iraq from the outset) and became a back-burner for Obama (even though his administration killed Osama bin Laden!) and Trump. You want to hear the real screaming, that will be if Biden can summon up the simple courage to shut down "Camp X-ray" at Guantanamo, release the remaining untried 37 prisoners, and send the convicted one to a US prison....unless all the black-site and "Gitmo" torture is ruled an extenuating circumstance and he is freed as well. George W. Bush screwed America on levels we are still trying to get our heads around.

On Trump, like Nixon, he was never liked. He was the butt of jokes at Spy magazine in the 1980s and despised by upper-class New Yorkers in that decade, was written off in the 1990s, came back with his reality show The Apprentice. Unlike Nixon, Trump has a raft of lawsuits for how he runs his businesses predating his time as US president. Nixon also resigned before going through the indignity of an impeachment -- Trump survived two. Wikipedia will always mindlessly follow the New York Times or New Yorker line on certain topics, and Trump has been on those publication's shitlists for decades. You want a pro-Trump Wiki-style article? Conservapedia has one: https://conservapedia.com/Donald_Trump ....they still claim the election is disputed, that's how in the bag of far-Right talking points. By the way, the California recall election is an unofficial litmus test for Trumpism. If Larry Elder gets in, Trump will run again in 2024, even though he still has COVID (last I checked.) If he doesn't, then watch out for the endless Zodiac Killer jokes as Ted "snot-eatin' on camera" Cruz rides again!
Larry is right, Wikipedia is biased, a thoroughly American take on an "encyclopedia", and anyone who denies it, needs to take one of the fifty billion guns in America, and blow their own stupid brains out.
It stands as the most bizarre project of the Web 1.0 era: concocted by Randians and Libertarians, it fronts as this allegedly academic information source, but the naked hackjobbery of many of the articles is there for all to see. There are articles now that have have no metric/International System of Units conversions for weights and measures used. Spelling flips from American standard to British standard, sometimes within paragraphs! For those sins and many others, I don't consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia; it's a Wiki and Wikis are not encyclopedias.


* Links to The Baffler's 2019 pre-pandemic article "Twentieth-Century Man" by Dave Denison which goes through all the low-lights of Biden's career previous to being Veep: his shit treatment of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas hearings, how he blew up his own 1988 presidential campaign by stealing chunks of a Neal Kinnock speech, his crappy history with school bussing in the late 1970s, and that monumentally dumb thing he said to the Los Angeles Times in 2018: “And so, the younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break,” Biden said. “No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break. Because here’s the deal, guys. We decided we were going to change the world. And we did.” (That was Denison's transcription of this: https://www.latimes.com/95641832-132.html )
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Blog post: The US-Afghan War article edits page....

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:03 pm

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:47 am
Biden's Wikipedia biography will always make him look like a saint, and Trump's biography will always make him look like Satan incarnate. And the rest of Wikipedia will always reflect that innate bias. A systemic bias.
EVERY US president, and every major US presidential candidate, has received the same treatment by Wiki-Fucks. Every war activity involving the US receives the same treatment. It is baked into their degenerate wiki-pie permanently and will keep happening so long as the bastard thing exists. Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, furry, gay, fascist, whatever; doesn't matter.

Quick walk down memory lane: this is when the first semi-protection scheme was implemented. Prominently mentioned are the Dubya and John Kerry articles. Note this crap:
Woohookitty, an administrator who supported the policy, said that the number of semi-protected articles would likely stabilize at around 40.
Ha ha ha. At present, tens of thousands of articles are under semi-protection. No one knows how many because there's no "central authority" or any attempt to keep track. They stopped updating this list in 2014. It is also a list of their worst administrators--many of them are long gone. This is still being updated for some reason.

And now it's time to "dox" a longtime Wikipedia administrator. Your petty wiki-asshole for the day is Michael "Woohookitty" Lindeen, a hapless suburban dad from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. One of Wikipedia's earliest vandalism patrollers, and still grinding it after 17 years. Guess what: he's been using the same handle on other websites. Piece-o-cake. (Maybe he should cut back on the cake?)
https://myspace.com/woohookitty
https://www.bakersfield.com/news/10-thi ... 5928c.html
https://www.facebook.com/woohookitty
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-lindeen-8265227

IS THIS ENOUGH BULLSHIT FOR YOU? I'm leaving out numerous arbitrations and mediations started over Bush article editwars....they kept on fighting over Bush long after he left the White House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ge_W._Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ge_W._Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ge_W._Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 7s_pretzel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ontroversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ontroversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ge_W._Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llegations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ush_Street
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ge_W._Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ge_W._Bush

John Kerry received similar "treatment". McCain received similar "treatment". Sarah Palin, Bernie Sanders, Obama, etc. etc. Literally gigabytes of sniping and ragetyping.

The little Wiki-Prickies cannot, CANNOT deal rationally or consistently with current political issues. The thing should have been set up from the beginning to ban articles about recent political activity, of ANY kind, in ANY country. I would also have banned BLPs, except under very strict criteria. But of course that would have discouraged millions of numbnuts from editing and prevented a lot of paid editing for egotist "autobiographies". They had to create every possible "honeypot", left wide open, to make it successful.

Feeding Jimbo's broken little ego, by making him "world-famous", was Job One.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Blog post: The US-Afghan War article edits page....

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:00 pm

Strelnikov wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 3:19 am
On Trump, like Nixon, he was never liked. He was the butt of jokes at Spy magazine in the 1980s
Once again, from SPY's very first issue, October 1986.
screenshot-archive.org-2021.09.05-13_52_47.png
screenshot-archive.org-2021.09.05-13_52_47.png (238.9 KiB) Viewed 2777 times
And what about the old Bonwit Teller building?
https://secretsofmanhattan.wordpress.co ... -treasure/

Post Reply