Crap or questionable articles

[Dr Mario]

Do you want know how many films are based on DC comics? Well here is an article but it such mess that you would have to reserch the entry article to find out. I want point out few errors I know: Films not in cronological order many of the DC serials came before the features yet some how they are listed after the fetures which makes no sense. Another mistake various DC comics imprints that have nothing to do with DC comics proper are mixed in. I could probably go one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... blications

here is similar article about Marvel comics films, but now for some reason the sole serial based on Marvel proprty is now included first. Other wise it retains all the same poor setup as the DC article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... blications

and here are TV propertes based on Marvel and DC same mess diffrent medium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... blications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... blications

Only reason these articles haven't been fixed up properly they suffer from bad case of page ownership...you know when one editor behaves like he owns the article no matter how you try to improve any of these articles they get reverted back to the shit state they are in.

[ericbarbour]

Know it well, since I was complaining about this on Wikipedia Review back in 2010-2011. Most people would just go "uh-huh" and try to change the subject. Wikipedia is a form of nerd-dom--just carefully covered up. Comic books and cartoons are IMPORTANT dammit!

A small reminder:

chart8TVshows.gif (29.95 KiB) Viewed 6158 times

[ericbarbour]

from an email exchange joking about Steven Seagal:

Seagal has steadily become such a multi-faceted train wreck over the decades that I just had to look this up. "Bob" knows I need the laugh. Fortunately, Wikipedia tickled the right bone coming out of the gate with a stupid editorial error that made the article even more enjoyable. Look at the second paragraph after this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Se ... television

In 2009, A&E Network premiered the reality television series Steven Seagal: Lawman, focusing on Seagal as a deputy in Louisiana. In 2011, he produced and starred in a 13-episode television [sic]

Oops, looks like whoever edits Seagal's WP article left that sentence hanging.

Second paragraph again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Seagal#Citizenship

Seagal was granted Russian citizenship on November 3, 2016; according to government spokesman Dmitry Peskov, "He was asking quite insistently and over a lengthy period to be granted citizenship." While various media have cited Seagal and President Vladimir Putin as friends and Seagal stated that he "would like to consider [Putin] as a brother", Putin has distanced himself from Seagal; Peskov is reported to have said: "I wouldn't necessarily say he's a huge fan, but he's definitely seen some of his movies."

Comedy gold. I wonder if Vlad watched any of Trump's forays into show business.

I was going to place a "sic" after the questionable semicolon but fuck it. B-.

[ericbarbour]

From a personal email exchange, about the Vernon Coleman article.

I can't but think of you when I hear someone speaking out against Wikipedia. Besides, I really like this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suvF8ZaIJUU

My response:

I can tell Coleman exactly who has been doing this and why--they consider him to be a "medical crank" and therefore deserving of abuse. Guy Chapman, one of the most anti-quack administrators on WP, even asked to have the article deleted, which would probably have pleased Coleman. Chapman tried TWICE--failed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... on_Coleman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)

It appears that Coleman tried to edit his own article and nothing infuriates Wiki-Nerds more -- not even the "HIV denialism" or the other unconventional medical ideas. So they are going to keep trying to snipe at him forever, even after he dies.

Remember, I helped co-author a book about all this crap. It will never see the light of day, because Wikipedia is so damn popular. And because Jimmy Wales, the shithead who pretends to be "Sole Founder" of Wikipedia, loves to sue and pull strings in order to silence his critics.

[Dr Mario]

Know it well, since I was complaining about this on Wikipedia Review back in 2010-2011. Most people would just go "uh-huh" and try to change the subject. Wikipedia is a form of nerd-dom--just carefully covered up. Comic books and cartoons are IMPORTANT dammit!

A small reminder:
chart8TVshows.gif

Yet it seems like wikipedia cannot regonize which Tom and Jerry cartoons are actually notable, many of articles about the Hanna-Barbara shorts have been removed/redirected while they have kept up articles on the disliked Gene Deitch shorts and the bland and boring Chuck Jones shorts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_and_Jerry_filmography any one that knows his Tom and Jerry history should know that the original HB shorts are the most notable specially the 1940s shorts and early 1950s.

[ericbarbour]

I don't make this shit up

(Also, the dumbfucks failed to add a more common meaning for TLB: Tractor/loader/backhoe--google it)

Screenshot_2021-02-22 TLB - Wikipedia.png (57.77 KiB) Viewed 5877 times

[ericbarbour]

WIRED magazine points out a stupid error on a Wikipedia article:

https://www.wired.com/story/who-is-r-a- ... iter-ever/

He also wrote 36 novels, which is a lot and which nobody, not even Lafferty, has ever put in the category of best. (A tragic mistake.) Of them, only four merit entries on Wikipedia; fewer than that are currently in print. The Wikipedia page for Serpent’s Egg, a late-career work that came out in 1987 and fell into obscurity promptly thereafter, includes what might be the best plot summary not only of a Lafferty novel but of any novel, ever written. As of February 24, 2021, at 3:22 pm, it reads, in its entirety: “Serpent’s Egg is a novel in which .”

And the same day that article ran, someone removed the non-summary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =997011585

But the WIRED writer is correct. Lafferty was a mad genius. And now he is almost totally forgotten.

[ericbarbour]

Need an example of extreme-nerd amateur OCD crap WP writing? Have some Harry Dresden. Written by IP addresses and amazingly lacking in references.

Plus there's always the Munster Koach. It has always lacked references, despite being started in 2007......

[ericbarbour]

The WP material about the early development of television is scattershot and poorly organized. You can TRY to read these articles, but they are very poor but lengthy "summaries".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_y ... television

This list of early stations is full of holes and errors. If it doesn't involve Doctor Who or Star Trek, they don't care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... n_stations

Meanwhile, one of the BEST summaries of American television technical development between 1933 and 1948 (when VHF channel 1 was killed off) is sitting on a nearly-forgotten private website from 2000, which predates Wikipedia itself. Why in the hell didn't they use this instead?

http://www.tech-notes.tv/History&Trivia ... nnel_1.htm

[Dr Mario]

Here is an article on obscure open software, it looks like an adwert if you ask me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobicents