Bbb23sucks' dump

[Bbb23sucks]

https://archive.is/4X4JS

[Bbb23sucks]

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... 1/d2aaey9/

Tamzin would be proud.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gerald_Waldo_Luis

"Asexual" "Thin Blue Line"

Yet more proof that Wikipedia social "progressives" are nothing more than right-wing shills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scorpions13256

https://archive.is/uuAE2

This user supports equal rights for queer people.

This user stands with law enforcement.

This user knows that tax cuts increase freedom and growth.

This user opposes universal health care.

This user knows that free trade protects more jobs than tariffs do.

This user believes that many Wikipedia pages relating to political topics suffer from a significant left-wing bias.

Replace "weed" with "trans" to get a more modern version.

f49STI8_d.png (393.71 KiB) Viewed 7953 times

Ha!

Edit: Also notice how the other userboxen say "believes" while the free trade one says "knows" like it is an objective fact. Stupid libertarians.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://www.scaruffi.com/politics/wikipedi.html

Wikipedia pages on albums and films routinely describe them with a "Response from the critics was generally positive" comment, totally ignoring the devastating reviews published by reliable independent critics. Those Wikipedia pages are clearly written/edited by PR agencies working for music labels and movie studios (and don't tell me that Wikipedia editors don't realize this).

I started noticing a disturbing fact: the popularity of Wikipedia is de facto obliterating all the alternative sources that one could use to doublecheck Wikipedia articles. A Google search on any major topic routinely returns a Wikipedia page in the first two or three lines. The other lines in the first page of results are almost inevitably commercial in nature. In order to find a scholarly page that can prove or disprove the Wikipedia page, one has to flip through several pages of Google results. Very few people make the effort. Therefore Wikipedia is rapidly becoming the only source of information about any major topic. Maybe this is acceptable for scientific topics (although i would still prefer that my Quantum Physics and Genetic Biology come from someone who has signed the article with his name and affiliation) but it is dangerous for topics that are "politicized" in nature. Then Wikipedia becomes the only source that billions of people access to find out what a politician, a government or a company has done. Worse: every topic can be "politicized" to some extent. I found references to the Bible and the Quran in articles about scientific topics. No traditional encyclopedia and no academic textbook would reference the Bible or the Quran to explain Quantum Mechanics or Cellular Biology. Precisely because it is edited by the "lay" public, Wikipedia lends itself to a global politicization of every topic. It is an illusion that Wikipedians carry out "anonymous and collaborative editing": the very nature of Wikipedia encourages people to avoid collaboration and instead to leak ideological agendas into encyclopedia pages. The "collaboration" about which Wikipedia boasts is the fact that someone can retaliate to an opinionated or biased statement by removing or altering that statement and maybe inserting one that leans in the opposite direction; but a brawl is a very loose definition of "collaboration".

There has been an undocumented explosion in the number of Wikipedia editors who are paid by governments, organizations, corporations and celebrities to twist the text of a Wikipedia article so that it represents the interest of that government, organization, corporation or celebrity. De facto, these shadowy paid editors express an opinion within a Wikipedia page that is supposed to be about some facts.

When there were only a few thousand articles, it was relatively easy for the unpaid idealistic editors to control the content of Wikipedia. Now that there are more than ten million articles, it is simply impossible for those unpaid editors to control what the paid editors do. To make matters worse, Wikipedia covets the idea that editors have to be anonymous: therefore there is no way for an unpaid idealistic editor to know if another editor is unpaid or paid. It's like those movies in which there is no way for a human to know whether she is surrounded by humans or zombies.
Like any corporation that has to hide its own shortcomings, Wikipedia boasts that "In the month of July 2006, Wikipedia grew by over 30,000,000 words". But that's precisely the problem. That's precisely what is frightening. Many of those 30 million words were written by unprofessional, biased and sometimes paid "editors" whose interest in creating an encyclopedia is much lower than their interest in promoting a viewpoint or serving their employer. This leaves less than 50,000 unpaid Wikipedia editors to fight against an increasing number of editors paid by government agencies, ideological organizations, corporations and celebrities, not to mention the thousands of occasional uninformed amateurs who introduce minor mistakes.

Wikipedia is increasingly representing the voice of the oppressor; or, if you prefer, the oppressors are increasingly keen on appropriating Wikipedia.
Even when the editors are well-intentioned, the effects can be devastating for intellectual progress. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles that dissect the music of pop stars but sometimes not even one about an alternative, underground, avantgarde musician. Wikipedia would have omitted Shakespeare, and we would not know that his plays existed.

In parallel, Wikipedia is having another detrimental effect on culture: it is sending out of business the only sources that we can use to verify Wikipedia's accuracy, i.e. the encyclopedias. Compiling an encyclopedia is a colossal endeavor that requires the collective work of dozens of distinguished scholars. The cost for the publisher is enormous. In the age of Wikipedia no publisher is crazy enough to invest millions for an encyclopedia that will have to compete against the much bigger and absolutely free of charge Wikipedia. The age of encyclopedias that began in the Enlightenment is ending in the 21st century. In other words, the fact that Wikipedia is free has created a problem of historical proportions. Since no more encyclopedias will be produced, and any specialized website will be infinitely difficult to find with a search engine, society will have no way to determine if a Wikipedia article is telling the truth or not. There will be no second source where one can doublecheck a statement, a date, a story, and let alone discussing the merits of who is represented on Wikipedia and who is not. Wikipedia is sending out of business the very sources that we use to determine Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy.
Wikipedia is not only becoming the main source of misinformation and defamation, but also of intimidation and censorship. There is a very simple way to shut up the people expressing opinions that you don't like: quote them out of context or misquote them on Wikipedia. If anyone writes something that you don't like, all you have to do is handpick something unpopular/unfashionable that s/he said or wrote or did and post it on his/her Wikipedia bio (or Wikipedia quotes), and that person will think twice about expressing the same kind of opinion ever again. It is way more effective than anything that an authoritarian government can do: you are sending an angry mob after him/her, and for eternity, instead of just sending one or two government agents once or twice.
On every major holiday, something truly terrifying happens on Wikipedia: Wikipedia asks its readers for money with statements that imply "what would you do without me?" Precisely. The danger is that Wikipedia will destroy all other encyclopedias and then Wikipedia will be able to blackmail the world: "without me, you have no encyclopedia". That's precisely the reason why you should NOT donate any money to Wikipedia.
At the same time the masses tend to assume that Wikipedia "is" the truth, just like they used to assume that the Bible is the truth. Whenever i post on my website a datum that differs from Wikipedia's, readers start writing to me that i made a mistake. I wonder how many scholars eventually give up and simply accept Wikipedia's mistake for the sake of getting rid of all these emails. For example, a Wikipedia article claims that SPECT was invented by Kuhl in 1962. There is a very detailed account written by his collaborator Ronald Jack Jaszczak ("The early years of single photon emission computed") that details how it was 1963. My website says 1963 but i keep receiving emails from students of nuclear medicine that i have the "wrong" date. The day that someone removes Jaszczak's article and other articles from the web i will have no way to prove that i am right and Wikipedia is wrong.
We'll need blind faith in the anonymous mob that edited a Wikipedia article. A scary prospect, to say the least.

Wikipedia's claim that anybody can edit an article is one of those false statements that become true just because a lot of people repeat them: in reality, millions of IP addresses are banned from editing Wikipedia. My favorite is a Stanford friend who added a link into a Wikipedia article (linking to this very article of mine) and has never been able to edit articles again: Wikipedia displays an error message in which he is accused of "non constructive behavior". Simply because he tried to link to this article that you are reading. If it reminds you of totalitarian regimes, welcome to the world of Wikipedia. Wikipedia keeps a detailed record of what every IP address in the world has written on which articles. And Wikipedia routinely bans from editing articles the places (like libraries) that don't allow it to track down the identify of the person by the IP address.

In the interest of the truth, please change an article on the Nazi massacre of Jews in Poland so that "Warsaw" becomes "Acapulco" and "Hitler" becomes "Mickey Mouse". This way people will be aware that they cannot trust an anonymous Wikipedia article and they have to use other sources to doublecheck the content of Wikipedia articles.

Uncanny foreshadowing.

Glaring errors

[wexter]

Your Scaruffi article boiled down by ChatGPT.

-Wikipedia pages on albums and films often ignore devastating reviews and are written or edited by PR agencies.

-the popularity of Wikipedia is obliterating alternative sources .. making it the only source of information on any major topic

--A growing number of Wikipedia editors are paid to twist the text of a Wikipedia article to represent the interest of a government, organization, corporation, or celebrity, etc

-Wikipedia is a source of misinformation and defamation and also of intimidation and censorship.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... CheckUser?

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... id=8646658

[Ognistysztorm]

Quite a GDPR/CCPA violation. Knew it from the upstart that doxxing practices doesn't confine to "official LTA pages" only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Call ... ehog_socks
https://archive.is/wip/yC28q

Besides, this should be moved into private areas because of some intimate details that might be encountered during the collection of scandals.

[Bbb23sucks]

Quite a GDPR/CCPA violation. Knew it from the upstart that doxxing practices doesn't confine to "official LTA pages" only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Call ... ehog_socks
https://archive.is/wip/yC28q

Besides, this should be moved into private areas because of some intimate details that might be encountered during the collection of scandals.

This too

[Bbb23sucks]

https://archive.is/ROYak