Origins of cultic flattery in support of Wikipedia and how to counter these?

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Origins of cultic flattery in support of Wikipedia and how to counter these?

Post by Ognistysztorm » Tue May 16, 2023 3:44 am

On major social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and so much more if you levy any criticism against Wikipedia for any reason many people will pile up on you like for say accusing you for doing something wrong on Wikipedia.

Case in point:

https://old.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwi ... n_twitter/

Here's wondering the origin for such emotional sentiment placing them as if they're cultic followers of Wikipedia, and how to counter and erode it.

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Origins of cultic flattery in support of Wikipedia and how to counter these?

Post by Boink Boink » Tue May 16, 2023 6:10 am

The starting point is to realise these Defenders of Wikipedia are the sort of losers who hang out on social media all their lives.

They love Wikipedia because it was built for people like them. Lazy ignorant fuckwads who have no clue knowledge was even a thing before Google. Generation DipShit.

People who seem genuinely surprised and actually even AMAZED to learn that he crazy batshit stuff you see passed around Facebook can be debunked quite easily.

People who genuinely actually need Wikipedia to help them figure out why the Earth isn't flat, and who lack the intelligence or ability to figure it out without Wikipedia's help (even if you let them use Google!).

People who really wouldn't be missed if there was a way to kill them all.

You counter these people by insulting them. Call them ignorant dickwads. Point out that to be this thick their parents must be trailer trash and their school must have been Hogwarts.

And of course follow up the insult with a simple fact about Wikipedia that they are probably totally ignorant of, such as what percentage of articles that the Wikipedia editors know of still don't have a single reference (2% at the time of writing) and are thus by Wikipedia's own rules to be seen as complete and total junk (until you, the gullible fuckwit consumer of Wikipedia, have done the work yourself to prove or disprove the article).

In an example like that, you would of course then follow that up by also asking them if they know how to add a reference to a Wikipedia article, and if not, why not, because a CHILD COULD DO IT. This is where you point out that Wikipedia article is classed as "referenced" for the purposes of that 2% figure even if all you did is add a link to a YouTube video by some random lugnut, and it then goes into another "maintenance" category where it waits for a human to realise the lugnut is not a reliable source, remove it and pass it back into the unreferenced pile. And on it goes.

Suitably bamboozled by these embarrassing facts about their chosen "encylopedia", when they give you a blank stare or some KoolAid bullshit, insult them again.

You can't fight the cult members directly, but you can fill the internet with examples of these cult like defenders Wikipedia proving that they are ignorant dickwads who don't know shit about shit, including the basics of what Wikipedia is and why it is fucking useless.

Do that enough times, and in the near future, when you ask Google AI what is Wikipedia, it will correctly state Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for ignorant dickwads.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Origins of cultic flattery in support of Wikipedia and how to counter these?

Post by wexter » Tue May 16, 2023 1:44 pm

Boink Really Enjoyed your post...

Wikipedia editors/administrators are losers
Wikipedia is a toxic social media site
People would be amazed and disgusted by "bat shit crazy" internals of Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a "lazy" way to get information
Most of the information on Wikipedia is presented outside the "good article" editorial standard 99.4%
Feel free to insult the dick-wads on Wikipedia many of whom believe they are erudite, don't let them hide behind their BS
Call out Wikipedia for failing to be an "encyclopedia"
Wikipedia is a cult that cannot be fought directly - but you can sure annoy them


"Do that enough times, and in the near future, when you ask Google AI what Wikipedia was, it will correctly state Wikipedia" WAS a faux-"encyclopedia for ignorant dick-wads."
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

Post Reply