Wikipedia might collapse soon due to a shortage of administrators. After years of abusive admins chasing away new users and them gatekeeping new admins (less than 100 new admins since 2010), Wikipedia is finally running out of admins. The final straw will be in 2023 when they lose over 200 admins due to inactivity. This means Wikipedia will have less than 800 admins for over 6.5 million articles. Many admins have died of old age in the 20 years of Wikipedia's exisitence, and most that are still alive are retiring fast. If Wikipedia dosen't start recruiting new admins fast then it will collapse as vandals take over. I predict that Wikipedia won't recruit new admins as the gatekeepers will want to cling on even as the project collapses.
I hope Wikipedia does collapse, it will serve them right for dictating knowledge on the internet and their notability policy which has destoryed whole categories of information.
oh no!
anyway
I hope it doesnt collapse personally, its a great place. Even if they have had biases in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Santiago_(1962_FIFA_World_Cup)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdstall
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Soda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_biosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casiquiare_canal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_clown_sightings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplicative_paramnesia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_the_Post-War_New_World_Map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Undeciphered_historical_codes_and_ciphers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Butt_Naked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyquake
Some interesting wiki pages to dissuade the negative opinions of op.
>Replace "theory" in contexts where it is a colloquialism for "guess"
Taken from the black helicopter history page.
OK soda failed because the cans looked like knock off poison. They picked some small cities to test, which probably meant easier market penetration
>en.m
have a nice day phone-Black person.
>http://en.m.wikipedia
go back
>uncontroversial trivia
So what.
This.
It should be noted the majority of donations are from large companies and institutions, that just so happen to have a large interest in controlling what's said on there.
It's garbage. Everything that needs to be there is and can be archived, it serves no ongoing purpose.
Good point, you are right.
One positive of wikipedia is that it does hold the top spot usually in internet search results which is good. I dont want some clickbait shit low quality website taking up that spot instead.
This is at least preserving some value? in my opinion it is.
It's much easier to lookup common (below phd level) information on wikipedia instead of navigating clickbait websites.
Wikipedia is a live archive, idiot
>everything notable that could be invented was already invented
moron.
>had
>past
6/10 bait
>in the past
Kys plebbit homosexual
It should just get ported to a better version where you have to prove some level of knowledge to be an admin or like PoS and bias admins can have their shit and cash removed.
making gatekeeping positions only funnel them into infiltrating the new gatekeeping positions
I know, but then it has to be not open source and then people will complain about that. If there could be paid mods and they filter through suggested edits from not for profit autists then sure.
Also the ability to take away a staked amount from troons because they edited a page wrong appeals to me tbh.
>If there could be paid mods
as if twitter mods are any better.
>in the past.
Lmao
>In the past.
To be fair, it's actually useful.
I'm still getting my math edits reverted for not citing a paper for simple substitutions.
The people who admin math pages are all morons
I actually like Wikipedia, find it incredibly useful, and find all the vitriol against wiki tedious and melodramatic.
Because you're only a consumer. You haven't ever tried to become a contributor and be wienerblocked left and right by power tripping homosexuals.
I have, some admin fixed my grammar mistakes and left a passive aggressive comment on the talk page.
>and find all the vitriol against wiki tedious and melodramatic.
I agree as well, it's shallow and pedantic.
>compare the usefulness of a cookbook wherein all the recipes using butter, lard and olive oil are replaced with shortening, and seed oils. how much less useful is the cookbook after recipes with meat are deleted? how useful is the cookbook after thousand year old indian vegetarian curries or tofu recipes are replaced with Beyond Meat recipes?
imagine how much MORE useful wikipedia would be if it were truly neutral and unbiased. imagine if every human being had uncensored access to Big Data. instead we have a wikipedia wherein readers aren't even aware that a second or third viewpoint could even exist.
Every edit I've ever made on wikipedia with sources was reverted by an autistic sperg mod who feels the article is his personal property, frick Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation.
This. It's a complete waste of time to try and contribute.
I've been kekking about this recently. An admin removed a lot of useful information from a living person's biography and I argued for reinstatement - basically I had learned who this person was from Wikipedia and when I went back to refresh my memory about some detail I was surprised to find that most of the information was gone. I got in a huge conflict with the administrator who had removed the info, who eventually ended up accusing me of sabotaging wikipedia for knowing the rules too well. He got so shitty about that other people started pushing back on him and came over to my side on the reinstatement.
The person whose biography it was has since been revealed as being at the middle of a very large political scandal and I often wonder if the admin was trying to bury the background material to keep him out of public consciousness.
I really like Wikipedia but there are some things they badly need to fix. the consensus-based decision model can lead to weirdly arbitrary and inflexible outcomes, like videogame screenshots are always at ridiculously low resolution - ostensibly to save storage space and avoid copyright violations, but neither claim is really credible and the upshot is that screenshots are useless because you can't really see what you're looking at. I suspect this is because some admins resent the inclusion of videogames in a serious encyclopedia.
I'm torn on their notability practices; there is a huge amount of unimportant fluff, but then the existence of that is used as a gatekeeping device to exclude other information that is at least as valid. In practice this acts as an amplifier for existing commercial publishers , badly compromising their independent stance.
>like videogame screenshots are always at ridiculously low resolution - ostensibly to save storage space and avoid copyright violations, but neither claim is really credible and the upshot is that screenshots are useless because you can't really see what you're looking at. I suspect this is because some admins resent the inclusion of videogames in a serious encyclopedia.
The low resolution part is because they're fair use, you dumb frick.
Proper free video game art is available under a high resolution.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fez_(video_game)_cover_art.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broforce_boss_rocket.png
There is quite literally nothing in the fair use doctrine that requires low-resolution images you paint chip eating motherfricking moron. Try not getting your information about IP law from wikipedia.
I have no problems with their rationale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content/Definition_of_%22low_resolution%22#Why_does_resolution_matter?
By the way, they also do this shit with books and movies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Book_cover_images_by_writer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_magazine_covers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Screenshots_of_films
It's not exclusive to video games.
>I have no problems with their rationale.
People like you never do.
>I have no problems with their rationale.
It's really dumb, because they are not putting any value on high resolution of images, when in fact, it's obviously important. They're also conveniently ignoring the issue of file size, which it's probably more about. They might just want to save money(which they have plenty off).
The court cases they cite just says that search engines are expressly allowed to make thumbnails of any image online. They did not judge on the use of full resolution images.
The other says that they are expressly allowed to inline display and link to full resolution images.
Resolution can have an impact, in that single court case from 2002. The impact there was just that low resolution images where definitely allowed.
Wikipedia are however ignoring all the other factors that play a much bigger role in fair use, as demonstrated in almost every copyright case, and not only that, these factors are in their favor as opposed to the cases they cite. Wikipedia is (legally) non-commercial, highly educational, fully transformable. And no one is going to sue wikipedia because of how much bad press that would get you.
This is a perfect example of the redditor legalistic, boot-licking, ToS-paranoid mindset.
>And no one is going to sue wikipedia because of how much bad press that would get you.
Stopped reading there.
>The low resolution part is because they're fair use, you dumb frick
Those two things have nothing to do with each other, fricktard. Lowering the resolution doesn't magically make them fair use.
Can't wait!
The technical stuff on Wikipedia is still very good and accurate. I haven't cracked open my CRC books or old textbooks in forever because Wikipedia is actually good on these points. I've been editing there since 2008 or something, always as an IP and I've had nothing but great interactions. This includes working on contentious content.
Where Wikipedia really sucks is contemporary, charged bullshit like homosexual-troony-Marxism shit. By my estimation, 99% of all admin effort probably goes into reading massive wall of texts written by needy benefits sloths just to say "no" while still have done an impartial weighing of the issue. The recent proposal to delete the article about deaths under communism had a mega-bytes sized AfD entry. Mind, that's almost nothing but text. And this was kept alive by a small clique of queer Black person socialists, requiring hundreds of editors to put in 1000+ hours rebutting their mental moronartion. ArbCom, AfD, all that shit adds up and is basically a process time sink.
Like lots of projects, Wikipedia has gottne process heavy, and that means the number of people willing to participate in official capacities has decreased.
did they delete the article
No, it closed as a near-universal keep with hundreds of editors coming in to shit on the homosexual commies. But it had to play out because policy. Lots of "some good points, but..." arguments for the sake of balance, but the vast majority of wiki editors clearly think the commies are murderous idiots.
The article for "TV" states that most TVs are LED, which is blatantly false. They are calling LED backlit TVs LED TVs. It is bullshit. They are LCDs.
oh and the article is locked. yeah cant have a controversial article like TV being fricking edited by just anybody
If you want a really good look at how ridiculous modern Wikipedia is on hotbutton topics, just look at the article for Julius Evola before and after the mainstream media discovered him around the 2016 elections.
An old version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldid=517279064
Now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
qrd?
>qrd?
Italian traditionalist philosopher, in 2016 Steve Bannon briefly mentioned being familiar with his philosophy, suddenly the media pounced all over it about how Evola was literally the most racist, sexist, and bigoted person to ever live. If you look at some versions closer to the shitstorm around 2016, I think there's a quote in the lead that says almost exactly that.
I didn't make this.
I remember seeing this happen in real time. I own his books and know about the man to some extent, so figured it was only a matter of time until this happened -- or, will happen to every one who is not PC in the [current year]. Give it five years and there will be more revisionism; ten years even more. Forcing historical subjects to be discussed solely in relation to the politics of the week is a slippery slope and is easily one of the stupidest things to emerge from modern history.
This is why the real information on the hot topics of whatever day is in the Edit History.
The more they try to cast interesting thinkers as fascists and rascists, the more other people start to think that fascists and racists have some good points. It's the great irony of their revisionism.
Unholy
>article on the left has barely any sources or references
>article on the right has sources and references for nearly everything
Oh the irony of people complaining about this
As mentioned before, 90% of the cited sources are outrage articles written as part of the 2016 election cycle. More information isn't always better when it's garbage information.
>garbage information
That's too generous, call it what it is baseless lies.
>nooooooo you must base all your beliefs on the holy textures of corporate media and western academia all the rest is schizophrenia and conspiracy nooooooo
ledes often are supposed to not link sources tho
I have read Evola. The left is actually accurate, the right is a smear campaign.
>article on the left is largely about Evola's work
>cites none of his work
>article on the right is largely about how people perceive him 80 years later
>uses random critics of his as sources
This is like rewriting the article on 'Judaism' solely by citing /misc/, George Lincoln Rockwell and David Irving, and then calling it credible because you have a source attached to the line "The israelites are responsible for all the world's problems".
If right-wingers controlled mainstream media and academia, then Wikipedia would unironically look like that.
So you recognize that the Evola article does have a strong left wing bias? And you're OK with it because "well the right would do worse if they were in charge!"?
What I'm saying is that the Evola article is an example of why Wikipedia was an ill-fated idea.
The left one describes him perfectly, and that's coming from someone who has read like 80% of his books. Why exactly would you need external sources if the guy himself wrote all his positions down anyway?
There's also one specific moderator who's very adamant about getting all articles about Third Reich military people deleted. First he removes all sources from an article, claiming that publications from the period aren't unreliable (but the same does not apply to contemporary Soviet, American, Chinese, or even Italian and Japanese sources, only German ones) and then he deletes all content from the page that relied on said sources. Finally, with said page reverted back to a stub with barely any biographical information, he files a request to delete it for lack of notoriety. He's extremely motivated, edits wiki every day and has been at it for years.
>aren't reliable
fix
Who is he?
it's some ugly empty egg carton b***h
https://archive.is/qN9W4
Oh, for some reason I was sure it was some fat neckbeard that looks like
Oh its a israelite, who would have known
Is it that Grayfell homosexual?
that anon is talking about K.e.coffman, Grayfell is some middle aged homestuck troon
wait I think I just found out his full name. oops lol
Oh noo
kek nice find
so Grayfell is Ethan Urbanik eh
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4857
He sure is!
>https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4857
Wow, Harry Nilsson did the hard work for us 8 years ago!
42 years old and spends all day malding at groypers on Wikipedia. Lol
https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/ethan-urbanik_id_G7336103572960734658
alright zoomers, do your best
>First he removes all sources from an article
That is a well tried method for killing off entire articles by speedy delete.
>File: 1650909832907.png (7 KB, 255x248)
This is an example of EVERY article now. Everyone went from what they did to 'how we perceive them now'. It is insane. I can't wait for it to implode and something devoted to at least truth not opinion being priority. Funny anecdote, have been in a regular war on the Muhammed page about the age of Aesha. People keep chaning it from 'as young as 6' to 'some people say 14'. It's a shithole.
Now post Karl Max’s edits,
The Marx edits were kind of justified since "Cultural Marxism" means multiple different things. Usually it's just a word mutts use to describe anything they don't like (and is more often than not a natural byproduct of mutt culture).
Internet libs are weirdly apathetic to commie ideology. Most of their ideological figureheads are women and Black folk.
Are you here to obfuscate?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Horkheimer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Dutschke
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis
>deliberately leaving out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis
Bad faith poster. Go back.
>when really it just allows resource extraction to be far more consolidated under one totally unchecked entity that controls everything
Most libs actually WANT this, though, which is unusual.
leaving out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis
What about it, homosexual?
>The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis has occasionally also been referred to as "cultural Marxism", in reference to Marxist ideas about culture.[5][6][7][8] However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, an influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis.[5]
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You just quoted what I already summarized in
.
I get the impression that you are obsessed with this topic and lack the emotional capacity to have a rational discussion about it.
They falsely believe communism will get them economic equality, when really it just allows resource extraction to be far more consolidated under one totally unchecked entity that controls everything, usually run by those already in power.
Ironically, the new version of the article is less damning of him.
Describing Evola in a neutral, objective way, alongside his photos, makes him sound like a colossal larper homosexual. The new article reduces this truth to vague culture war babbling, and undoubtedly replaces the old citations linking to his hilarious actual writing with links to random liberal blogs.
Liberals have done more for reactionary politics than half a century of reactionaries could ever manage.
I will never forgive them.
True. On the electoral college page the initial blurb consists more of talking about “““critics’””” opinions on how heckin evil and racist it is than discussing its function and effects
I just read it and I dunno dude, it seems pretty neutral and matter of factly. It IS a garbage system as described, I don't get a whining snowflake lib feel from the text.
You're fricking moronic and you failed civics
>neutral
>garbage system as described
you've just been propaganda'd
"critics" opinions are psueds who never worked in government. their opinions carry the wieght of talk show hosts and their paid guest speakers. citing their opinions is intentionally misleading when we could cite the Federalist Papers instead, which outline exactly what the founding fathers intended with each decision, weighing the pros and cons at the time.
Despite any modern perception of flaws in the Constitution, when viewed in context as a product of it's time, you can see every article and clause being a compromise or concession by early politcal power-blocs. Each check and balance is delicate was a work of art, like a well made clock. Considering that the Articles of Confederation had trouble barely lasting 13 years, that fact that the Consitution worked at all is a miracle on the level of build a space ship with rocks and duct tape. Citing recent opinions (secondary sources) instead of primary sources goes against every best practice in the feild of historical scholaship.
All the primary sources have been effectively bastardized by years of interpretation and precedence which means we need to look at more recent sources and decisions to understand the full meaning of each those old documents.
Otherwise it's the same theory-based arguments that ignores the current implementation of those systems.
Whenever you describe something as something that it doesn't describe itself as then you're overstepping a basis. Like when all these pages are updated to be 'alt right' 'conspiracy theory' or 'facists'.
They are fine as 'criticisms' sections, but it's overstepping. Conspiracy theory is fine as 'theory' or 'unsubstantiated or yet proven belief', but these words are clearly used to attach an opinion. Now if someone actually said they were 'alt right' or 'facist' then sure. But it rarely happens and its just someone else's opinion entirely and that doesnt really bare on what the thing is.
Eh, even for technical stuff Wikipedia can be a bit spotty.
I've seen several excellent pages get deleted for having 'too many primary sources' or 'relevance'.
'Too many primary sources' is the biggest load of shit ever. Of course it has some use, otherwise every corporate or cryptocoin article would just be a fawning endorsement of whatever the people behind it want you to believe.
But like a lot of things, the sensible caveats have just been abused by people playing the metagame, leaning on procedural arguments to exclude substantive information that is unfavorable. This is especially visible on articles referencing legal topics; things like Supreme Court opinions or statute law are the ultimate primary sources, which should always be included as reference material regardless of how one might feel about the topic.
Secondary sources often provide valuable context, but that value is badly eroded when the relation to the primary source is obscured. It's the inverse of the problem in the legal world, where judicial opinions and law review articles are sometimes eclipsed by the volume of their own footnotes. In law the metagame is dinging people for omitting a relevant citation as a distraction from the substantive question, so there's a tendency to keep adding more well past the point of utility or readability.
>The technical stuff on Wikipedia is still very good and accurate. I haven't cracked open my CRC books or old textbooks in forever because Wikipedia is actually good on these points. I've been editing there since 2008 or something, always as an IP and I've had nothing but great interactions. This includes working on contentious content.
same, anon. I contributed several times to articles related to CPU architectures and osdev related stuff. Always as an ip. Never had a rollback.
>The technical stuff on Wikipedia is still very good and accurate.
Objectively speaking, Wikipedia is trash. Calling it "very good" is too generous. But there are no real alternatives, so it's the best of the worst.
What do you mean a megabyte sized AfD entry? Are you talking about Alternativ für Deutschland?
AfD means articles for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFDEQ
Kek I remember that shitshow. Davide King and his brigade of commie homosexuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davide_King
Up there in the homosexual list with Doug Weller, Aquillion, and what's-his-name
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Doug_Weller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aquillion
Not to mention the literal troon squad.
Agreed. It's generally great for mathematics.
>needy benefits sloths
This was basically one of the points the founder of Wikipedia made as to why it sucks now. They are inherently selecting for jobless 20 something who use the internet all day for contributions.
https://larrysanger.org/
For more information about Wikipedia and "fact checking" in general.
This
Frick trannies
This seems like a good place to post an exceptional dweeb I discovered recently on Wikipedia. Just read through this guy's userpage, it's like every stereotype of an obnoxious, self-important redditor distilled into an actual person. If you want to know why no one likes editing Wikipedia, people like this is why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tgeorgescu
lmao, isn't that guy a janny too?
>Remember: truth is my weapon and if you misbehave, I will use it against you. If you want to accuse me of something nasty, present evidence or shut up forever. I have great respect for truth. At the same time I am a mastermind at weaponizing truth. I like wiki-persecuting bigots, pseudoscientists and quacks. Do you think I'm mean? The watchdog must bite.
Remember, you making fun of soibois is exactly why they become trannies.
Isn't that the fate soibois deserve, though?
No. Nobody deserves that.
Yes, they do.
>Remember, you making fun of soibois is exactly why they become trannies.
good, next step they 41% themselves
>bullying them into suicide with extra steps
>According to DNA analysis I might have the following ethnicity: Kosovar, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, or Romanian. As combination of two ethnicities: Moldovan + Thessalonian Greek, or Hungarian + Ashkenazi israelite.
You won't be able to convince me this isn't a satire page made by some anon no matter how hard you try.
>pseudoscientists
why do they like this word so much?
Easy way to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with the current consensus (which will change or even reverse itself in 6 months' time, of course)
Decides who gets government funding or not.
99.9% of research goes nowhere, but if say some pseudo scientist like Issac Newton was doing alchemy today, you could be certain that he wouldn't be getting government funding.
Anything that strays from orthodoxy, especially if it's an expert's gut feeling, is not real knowledge.
This is why echo chambers are bad. People get an ego thinking they are big fish in their tiny pond and bring that to reality. This is how you get troonys. People around them going 'yes, you ARE a woman'.
Debatable. I am happy for people to ruin their lives and end up killing themselves. I would rather they just checked their ego and became normal. I mean, if you can't handle a little bantz you probably deserve the sepuku
>I have great respect for truth. At the same time I am a mastermind at weaponizing truth.
What's true? Why a journalist interpretation of something, a researcher said, of course.
>What about replication crisis, the obvious faults in most sciencetists understanding of statistics and how they affect reasearch conclusion? how about the fact that every expert scoffs/cringes at every journalist arcticle about something they are an expert in? Or that journalists aren't even mildly intellegent people and thus arn't a middle man to get facts?
Do you consider any of this when you hold your "facts" up as gospel?
>I don't attack religion, like Richard Dawkins, but I like to cream religious fundamentalists.
>cream
He like to what?
Lol exactly, that guy is a living Basedjak.
>cream
Is old slang for ‘beat’.
haha
>ethnicity:
>part israeli
Every single time
>"For the fanatic, the Devil is the intellectual, because the intellectual has doubts."
>BSc in sociology
Holy lol
>dumbass posts his real name and university credentials on his userpage
So this is what Wikipedia editors look like, huh?
https://uva.academia.edu/TudorGeorgescu/CurriculumVitae
is... is that a fatter version of le /misc/ face?
>Linux Professional
So...this is the power of lincucks
why are people so predictable
Among the many mistakes of the 20th century, one of the big ones was discarding physiognomy.
art imitates life imitates art imitates life..
Literally what I thought of in my head. And these nerdy fricks always use the thin square framed glasses too.
>always use the thin square framed glasses
Why though? What is the reason behind this preference? I've been wearing glasses my whole life, but I've never used that type and I've never been tempted to.
it's uncanny
Remember, these are the people who try mocking you with caricatures of themselves.
Fug
>This user identifies with hacker culture.
lol
Wikipedia is full of israeli vandals like this. They are slowly erasing “problematic” history like ww2 heroes who just happened to be on the “wrong side”. It is very bad. All the other scientific info worth looking at can be found through free and open university courses. It’s hard to say how to compile true history though…. All in all wikipedia can’t die soon enough
Wikipedia does have a disproportionate amount of israeli editors and admins. Their revisionism is something to worry about, and if you find good content in the Edit History, add it back and/or start a Talk section. There are plenty of goy history buffs that are totally willing to bring good content into articles despite the wails of nosenites.
You will be glad to hear that the Early Life phenomenon was an epic own goal by WikiJews. Basically, they furiously reseached the histories of tons of famous people, so that they could "claim" them as fellow israelites, as a matter of ethnic pride. The rest of the world then got red pilled by what all that actually means.
Absolute fricking state.
It would be in the best interests of everyone if wikipedia were shut down.
>I write about Christianity sine ira et studio: I don't write only favorable stuff, nor only unfavorable stuff, but I write from an outside and disinterested perspective, based upon sources favored by WP:CHOPSY. Of course, POV-pushers construe this as mockery of their own religion, but Bible professors from Harvard and Collège de France don't. There is a distinction which some people don't get: I do not cultivate mockery of religion, I cultivate higher academic learning about religion.
>As they say, "The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys". I cannot afford to buy cars, planes and yachts, so my toys are ideas.
>For intellectuals ideas (including religious dogmas) are toys. Your religion is for us a provider of toys. One man's religion is another man's laughing stock. Again: Bible professors from Harvard and Collège de France don't construe as mockery what I write here about your religion.
This is comedy fricking gold.
Reminds me of Gwern Branwen, a massive wiki homosexual
He sounds absolutely fricking insufferable.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tgeorgescu
>User has a bachelor of SCIENCE in SOCIOLOGY
Do they not understand that science and socio are at odds?
Maggots on decaying flesh. They only thrive in a decaying system that you should not be a part of anyway. Pay them no mind.
>bachelor in sociology
>israeli
>atheist
god damn the memes write themselves
in sociology
Don't forget the Master's degree in psychology. He knows the human mind very well and absolutely abhors quackery and scam artists.
That's why he joined mensa, after all.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tgeorgescu
>I'm a mensa member hacker (not a cracker)
>https://web.archive.org/web/20160303200838/http://members.home.nl/icnl/tudors_guide.pdf
>Open a full X session from graphic programs and open a command prompt to run apt-get install
Wikipedia has robots to ensure order remains. They don't need human employees anymore.
>the "did you know" section is now just misleading, buzzfeed-tier clickbait
Has anyone else noticed this? They used to only do this shit on April Fools.
Threadly reminder that Wikipedia has cancer.
Uhh, if Wikipedia doesn't get more money, how will the Diversity and Inclusion executives get their million dollar salaries, bigots
WTF are they spending $91 million on?
Hiring pajeets to write the JS popups begging for money every time you visit the site.
Um, it's $111,839,819 now.
>If everyone donated a cup of coffee to wikipedia!
lmao most basic site and server space.
>120 million revenue
>91 million expenses
Obvious money laundering is obvious. Especially since Wikipedia contributors do it for free and a big part of hosting is kept on mirrors maintained by universities.
The execs are swimming in money by doing nothing. Roflmao.
>serves plaintext and a few images
>php codebase
>90% of employees are jannies who do it for free
>takes $91 million a year to run
seems legit
Wikimedia Foundation also hosts Wikimedia Commons, and Wikisource. The former has full movies in the public domain, a lot of high-res pics available under free licenses or the public domain, and (since this year) a lot of music in the public domain. It's still meaningless and in no way or shape justifies the $91m budget, but they do host more than low-res pics.
Please donate the needful amount sir.
ruined by jannies like 4cucks
>lock article editing
>meanwhile search for people
wow that was hard, dumb firstworlders
My Don't-Give-A-Frick-O-Meter is not giving a frick, and neither am I.
not my problem. im hoarding a full kiwix rip of wikipedia. even if the internet goes down i can still host a backup
>I hope Wikipedia does collapse
I hope this too, and they will deserve everything bad it happens to them.
Not going to spend a single bit of my time crying for them, you reap what you sow.
Wiki cofounder left Wikipedia and he's started his own decentralized wiki platform
>left leaning establishment
Look at the other side, it's even worse kek.
https://www.conservapedia.com
That's not part of encylosphere. The goal of encylosphere is to do you can easily corss reference wiffersnt wikis. It would be like you are on conservapedia for some topic and can instantly switch to the Wikipedia article for the same topic.
Also..
>B-but conservatives worse!!
What the frick are you trying to say you illiterate frick?
I said what I said, you're the one who's having trouble reading. Stop projecting.
His post is perfectly understandable
>The goal of encylosphere is to do you can easily corss reference wiffersnt wikis.
translate
The goal of a group of independent encyclopedias is that you can easily cross reference across them.
Not being able to interpret spelling/grammar errors (or pretending to) is not the indicator of high IQ you think it is.
>pedantic homosexual plebbitor can't into reading comprehension
You have to go back.
At least they have the bias on their name, upfront
I dont know what you are complaining about?
Admittedly he seems to be wanting a bit of attention after all these years, but he's not wrong
He's not wrong, but he is right for the wrong reasons. He's been making alternative wikis for years, and every one of them ended up even more biased and full of bullshit than Wikipedia, not less.
>He's not wrong, but he is right for the wrong reasons. He's been making alternative wikis for years, and every one of them ended up even more biased and full of bullshit than Wikipedia, not less.
Proof?
Wikipedia proclaims to be unbiased and impartial. Conservapedia tells you it’s ideology in its name. Further self-admitting left-leaning wikis were created in reaction to Conservapedia. The crumb-eating reactive wikis have no almost influence on people trying to look for honest information on a topic that click the first result. I know you’re a troony, but you don’t have to be a moron.
Truthful and accurate information doesn't equal "lefty ideology" anon. The cognitive dissonance you /misc/tards display is amazing.
>Truthful and accurate information
Like the Hunter Biden laptop being fake?
Cope and dilate more homosexuals
>Cope and dilate more homosexuals
Actually based, this is true freedom.
>Actually based, this is true freedom.
That shirt is peak IQfyshion, nice.
>That shirt is peak IQfyshion, nice.
Nice programmer leggings.
>Truthful and accurate information doesn't equal "lefty ideology" anon. The cognitive dissonance you /misc/tards display is amazing.
>Truthful and accurate information doesn't equal lefty ideology
Indeed. That's why Wikipedia isn't truthful and accurate on these topics.
>these topics
I watched a Stossel-kino on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA
can't wait for wikipedia to die
Support encylosphere
frick the Wikipedia israelite
nice prediction, not gonna happen
2 more weeks
We have enough NEETs and hikis here, maybe some of them could climb the wikijanny ranks and (counter)subvert it from within?
>and (counter)subvert it from within?
That requires social skills, NEETs and hikis lack it.
>Wikipedia editors
>social skills
And no, neuroticism and histrionics are not social skills.
I want to but I, sadly, have a job.
I just read something about this from 2012, it's a nothingburger.
Doesn't need admins to revert vandalism. Any user can do it with scripts and tools.
Whatever. Archives of wikipedia exist and someone will just carry on the torch if it ever goes under.
Honestly, the only truly necessary things on wikipedia is the content that appears at the top of a page and on the right of the page and any old "thing cataloguing" service could replicate that.
If all of the crowdsourced opinioning of the actual articles disappeared nothing of value would be lost, and for all of its autistic screeching over [Citation Needed], the footnoting aspect of Wikipedia is inconsistent to the point of being anti-value and the bane of academics everywhere.
https://winworldpc.com/product/encarta/1999
Let me guess, you need more?
ITT: /misc/tards seething that normal people roll back their heckin based and redpilled edits
What pains me the most about /misc/tards is that they don't see just how annoying and moronic they are (just as much as the side they hate).
Both sides are fricking annoying and I wish they would stop injecting their mind virus and low intellect into everything.
>some gay homosexual troon does something in bumfrick nowhere united states
>I'm forced to read about it and get offended at it because /misc/Black folk force me to whenever I open the catalog
It's so fricking tiresome.
But both sides ARE stupid in this case.
based enlightened centrist
/pol/tards constantly shit up this board with moronic off topic threads
>someone says something you don't like
>call them a /misc/tard
The irony is that you're not really doing anything to improve the site because the real problem you are so pissed off at has nothing to do with /misc/ specifically, but keep saying that and see if it ever fixes anything
why don't you cry about it over at reddit with your buttbuddies?
If they were shitting up boards their threads would die. You shitting up the board with inane comments is the problem
>talk about anything
>IS THIS POL OMG
Your brain is rotten from the internet.
kys homosexual
If the post in this picture was false, nobody would have felt the need to make the picture.
non-sequitur
Apparently there won't be any "normal people" to do that soon.
>ITT: /misc/tards seething that normal people roll back their heckin based and redpilled edits
You have to be a pretty big homosexual to think all these edits are actually a good thing and are unbiased. Attack /misc/ instead of actually wanting a online Wikipedia open to anyone, you insufferable moron.
He's clearly mocking the person he greentext, not reaffirming the greentext opinion. You tarded?
Frick wikimedia and their waa waa gib monies begging they do like they're still running wikipedia on a cobbled together webserver in their parent's garage. The only reason they can claim that their operating costs are so low is that thousands of people are stupid enough to work for free.
Wikipedia takes a unique place in the world of spreading slightly lower than surface level knowledge while being understandable by most normies without being so dumbed down that it's for literal babies. Most articles are good starting points to get yourself started on a topic but for true knowledge you still have to dig deeper yourself.
I'll definitely keep an archive but I won't cry if it farts and dies.
I don't get how any website finds people to work for free. What is the secret?
It weaponises shut-ins with autism.
welfare leeches, leftists, troons (lots of overlap there)
same kind of people who gravitate to "moderation" positions online (including this site): it makes them feel powerful while they're powerless losers IRL
Title implies 92 percent of all. Article says it covers those arrested.
Find a better source.
>I don't get how any website finds people to work for free. What is the secret?
Once upon a time (15+ years ago) I was a Wikipedia contributor, but left as the rot was setting in.
These days I contribute to the Installgentoo wiki. The reasoning is a bit complex but I admit it takes a lot of time.
I used to hang out on the various fora on the net, including Usenet News, always using an alias or plain anonymous. One by one these sites fell into disuse or disrepair or as in the case of Slashdot, it was a pileup of stupid people who considered each other funny. They were not. And I left.
Next we got a new generation sites, but sites that demanded use of name. That is not just that other site but also The Register and others. Quickly these turned towards reputation building, and the ability to down-vote led to a new form of rot. It was still rot, and I left. Being factual right was of less import than being part of the right group. As for The Register, one must always take the knee against Brexit to be considered worthy. So I left.
And that leaves 4ch as the last reasonable place. For all the filth and fury, the discussions here are far better than elsewhere. The generals tend to be good but some went around in circles. So I went ahead and made a few FAQs and reference pages on Installgentoo. I think the discussions benefited in that things progressed rather than circled. So I benefited writing these articles, and I hope others did too. There is a cost in time but the benefit makes it worth it. And that is why I continue.
I think that's exactly it: The idea of people coming together to discuss everything and get that shit written down in some shape or form.
That only works out, if those people are mostly oblivious to group-think and consider everyone else, each individual post, as a single individual.
That's why after all those people have to be somewhat careful about who mingles with them.
Without some serious gatekeeping, such an effort is doomed to fail, since /misc/tards of all types will ruin everything.
That's why the badmouthing of the chans found in all political circles is a good thing. It keeps those people away, that can't think on their own.
>That's why the badmouthing of the chans found in all political circles is a good thing. It keeps those people away, that can't think on their own.
lol
Sounds like /b/ or /misc/.
/b/ turned shit in 2005. /misc/ was never good, although it sometimes has an interesting thread.
In both cases because the gate-keeping failed.
As long as those fricks stay contained there, I couldn't care less.
>That's why the badmouthing of the chans found in all political circles is a good thing
That image confirms this statement. IQfy was in no way badmouthed on r/the_donald, it was praised as a free speech haven for them.
I mentioned 4ch casually to a colleague of mine a while ago. She replied she was a battle hardened veteran of /misc/, /x/ and much of the rest. Oh, and she is about 65.
>Without some serious gatekeeping
Therein lies the problem. After the cybsec purge, a lot of people left and we still don't know where they went.
From fricking when is that tweet? The late 2000s?
Why would anyone ever plug devices into NSA-controlled USB ports in 2022?
Enjoy another classic from the cybsec generals.
>Well, the replies tell the story, I suppose.
I guess they harvested a lot of stupid people. I guess everything and everyone are grist for their mill.
Turns out, it's real:
https://twitter.com/NSAGov/status/1103041242164736000
>2019
Well, the replies tell the story, I suppose.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
>Circumcision (male): voluntary, religiously relevant and hygienically beneficial operation.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
>Circumcision (female): involuntary, sexist operation with adverse health effects.
Wikipedia always had a bias problem and it's only getting worse because they heavily rely on reliable mainstream media as sources- media that are having to resort to more and more colorful if not downright clickbaity reports just to compete with everyone else on the internet.
I don't see the bias. If you unironically think FGM is the same thing as circumcision you're a fricking moron.
As the article mentions, circumcision is a valid medical treatment for some conditions and I don't see where it claims it's "voluntary". The article also
mentions that there are complications, adverse effects and overall seems fairly unbiased.
>inb4 you-u're a mossad agent!
I am a white european male
The article for male circumcision is almost entirely dedicated to its benefits. The "adverse effects" section is a small section that is used mainly to explain that complications are very rare, and to dismiss everything else.
Cultural and religious reasons for cutting little kids is (rightfully) called into question on the female page, but accepted as normal on the male page.
If you think that fiddling with children's genitals is so completely different based on their sex that it validates two polar opposite articles, it might be you that is the fricking moron.
There are different genital mutilation techniques and some of the ones used on women are particularly bad (like the Africans who sew baby veganas shut) but cutting off the female prepuce falls under the FGM umbrella. In that case it is literally the same as male circumcision.
Circumcision and FGM are identical in purpose and broader techniques.
>I don't see the bias. If you unironically think FGM is the same thing as circumcision you're a fricking moron.
Mutilation is mutilation.
On non-controversial subjects it's not that bad tbh
yes it is.
i tried fixing an article for a political journal piece that did not have the sources listed correctly, most likely on purpose given it was the kind that neither side agrees on nor want to acknowledge
i fixed it, banned and reverted back to the nonexistant source
also there are some revisions that don't get shown unless you archive them yourself but that is for the more spicy topics like mine
they are hit and miss with more misses if anything
As a IQfygay, Wikipedia mods decided to remove all the moveset related information from the wrestler pages. They removed Hulk Hogan's leg drop from the Hulk Hogan page.
That clued me in on what kind of weirdos do fricking admin work on this shit. So frick Wikipedia. Let it die
Their guidelines for notability, both for content within articles and especially for articles themselves, are completely fricked and basically meaningless with how inconsistently they're applied. Consider that Chris-chan still doesn't have an article, despite the recent incest case providing no shortage of mainstream media notability, but every obscure women's studies professor who published two papers gets a page. And let's not forget the extensive time period that searching "gamergate" redirected to an article anout a species of ant, with them only begrudgingly making it a disambiguation page within the last few years, as if it's a 50/50 split which one you're probably looking for.
what is a good alternative to wikipedia that is free?
>dictating knowledge
>it's another "wikipedia is actually evil and not one of the greatest human achievements and websites of all time" thread because someone reverted anon's edits to the holocaust and transgender pages
Found the wikipedia mod.
don't even have an account, gay
It's way more than just israelites and trannies. Anything that doesn't agree with globohomosexual narratives is censored. Unless you actually know something about those subjects, it appears "neutral", but try doing some research on something like nutrition or psychiatry, and then reading the wiki articles. You'll see they're not neutral at all.
"Agrees verbatim with your schizo beliefs" != "Neutral"
But that's clearly not what he said troony. Also, ywnbaw.
>it's another "I don't care if the encyclopedia doesn't serve factual information in political topics because I agree with their bias" post
greatful of my 2010 copy saved on cold storage in my ass.
Vandals have had control for quite some time. A encyclopedia is supposed to present hard facts.
All of their articles about politicians are steeped in opinion and propaganda.
The site’s just as fricking garbage as your high school English teacher told you it was.
> be communist poltard
> seething hard that they're unable to use wikipedia as schizo blog for their pedophile fantasies
> don't realise the software is open source
> don't realise they could clone the entirety of wikipedia and create their own version
> world knows commie poltards are the dumbest fricking idiots known to mankind - don't have to worry about a competitor in that space.
btfo. what i enjoy the most is how computer illiterate and incompetent you and the rest of such failures seem to be. you.. could create your own service, but you're just too fricking stupid to do it. the only thing you computer illiterate communist Black folk can do is cry on a message board. my sides. in orbit.
>all this histrionic garbage
You're having a panic attack and need to dilate asap my man. Learn to greentext too.
> seething communist pedophile can't run a website
many such cases! when is the livestream of your suicide going ahead, xiang?
>moronic shill can't greentext properly and blows his cover
many such cases
And THAT is why everyone defending Wikipedia is an idiot.
A quick look through the profile pages of the Wikipedia moderators will reveal that communist pedophiles are the ones running Wikipedia.
Do not look up "Virgin Killer" on wikipedia, worst mistake of my freakin' life.
Frick you homosexual
What always bothered me the most on Wikipedia is the sheer number of completely irrelevant Bollywood actors on the English Wikipedia. When I worked a call center job I would just go through random articles and talk pages/community pages. I swear, every fifth article was a different Indian actress. The notoriety requirement is a sham.
this is wikipedia's newest jannie, say something nice about it
https://web.archive.org/web/20220526032242/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamzin
https://web.archive.org/web/20220523232303/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamzin/340/112/16:_An_RfA_debrief
this homie be four homies in one
Your average Python programmer, everyone.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220527023526/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamzin/Guidance_for_editors_with_mental_illnesses
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WHAT THE FRICK
>five o'clock shadow
its high noon somewhere in the world
God I hope it collapses. It's a straight up propaganda arm of the globohomosexual at this point.
if anyone contributes to wikipedia, i'm too lazy to edit this myself, but it should be jay and silent bob strike back, not "strikes" back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Elizabeth
hi luke
Wikipedia mods are HUGE homosexuals. You never know how bad it is until you actually try and make a new page.
>notability policy which has destroyed whole categories of information
can you elaborate?
Good riddance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trans_women_Wikipedians
>mfw you can't edit the transgender wikipedia page to say mentally ill because the trannies have locked everything
so.
this is the future of the west.
~~*they*~~ more organized than us, and unfortunately, I don't see that changing.
where do i emigrate to as the police state draws near?
China, they are moving towards utopian communism at a rapid pace.
less gay back-and-forthing more laughing at wikipedia admins, please!
oh no no no even Wikipedia's co-founder realized that the rule to only cite recognized and official newspapers as source would end up reflecting the opinions and biases of those who own them (i wonder who that might be?)
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
holy shit that dude is moronic, i agree with him on the obama shit but
>muh u cant say "gospel reliability is uncertain"
this is true; everything is false until proven otherwise and belief is just that, a belief
>muh b-but "alternative medicine is..."
more research needs to be done to prove the efficiency of such; again, false until proven true
dude's clearly a nutcase, just because he cofounded wikipedia it doesn't mean he's not a drooling moron
>this is true
It isn't when it comes to historical events.
>more research needs to be done to prove the efficiency of such
Medicine and psychology have been under a reproducibility crisis for over a decade now. Chances are that whatever "research" is done on those topics is fraudulent and the researchers toyed around with the numbers to get the result they wanted. See the Prizer COVID "vaccine" claiming a 98 % risk of death reduction when in reality it only reduced risk from 0.88 % to 0.04 % (and this after they removed some of the test subjects who were severely affected by it.)
Ultimately the problem with Wikipedia is a problem of a much bigger scale. Science itself has been perverted by economical and political interests and all dissidence is held to a higher standard of quality, thus keeping it out from discussion and essentially erasing it.
>Ultimately the problem with Wikipedia is a problem of a much bigger scale. Science itself has been perverted by economical and political interests and all dissidence is held to a higher standard of quality, thus keeping it out from discussion and essentially erasing it.
How are you ignoring the active subversion by CCP agents?
>political agents
He covered that
it's more of a question of having proof to back the claims behind alternative medicine
nobody stops you from doing the research or funding it
yes, you'd have to be a fool to believe all the research out there is trustworthy, but generally if research from multiple countries with no shared interests agree on something, it's likely true
but still:
1. tetraethyl lead happened and the research was in favor of it initially because they were a bunch of paid crooks
2. the big sugar lobbyists funded research to blame all the health issues on fats (when it's actually simple sugars being responsible for most of these)
3. the big tobacco shit...
i wouldn't be surprised if 40-50 years from now we get proof behind current big pharma faking shit for profit
it's an inherent issue to capitalism, profits above morality
before i get called a commie, i don't think communism can work - i come from a post-communist country and i've seen it "work" (spoiler: it doesn't)
>nobody stops you from doing the research or funding it
In reality major publications make it very hard for regular people to publish their findings. Self-published papers are largely ignored.
>Self-published papers are largely ignored.
Case in point: Google suppresses all pages on Installgentoo and Neocities in their pageranking.
cf. Dr John Ioannidis' essay Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
and young fedora redditors think that Science (TM) is the only way to reach truth (truth in general and not only scientific truth) so nothing can be ever be affirmed unless it's been published by a basedentist
and basedentists only work when they're financed by corps or governments, huh how convenient
Yes. Science is ultimately the tool we use to learn the truth about the universe, but it's not the only way to obtain it. The scientific method is the method we use to conduct science, but it's not the only way and also using the scientific method doesn't turn something into a science.
The thing is that the layman (and apparently academia) thinks scientific method = science and science = truth.
Ironically enough the social sciences and humanities began with the right idea, that they could use a different approach to understand speicific aspects of reality and human nature; but that has been perverted to "truth doesn't exist" and "everything you believe is true."
Social sciences and humanities were always pseudoscience. NONE of it has a replicability with a higher rate than random chance. It always only existed to suit prevailing social and political narratives.
And yet they do produce knowledge and find truth. That's the whole point.
Replicability is a standard we use in an attempt to make sure something is true, but not everything that can't be replicated is a lie. History, an individual, weather, the pattern smoke makes are some thing that are not replicable, but are truth nonetheless.
In fact, the scientific method doesn't claim that something is true. At most it claims that something is "not false."
Do you have any scientific paper to back it up, or is it just your opinion?
>Social sciences and humanities were always pseudoscience
the knowledge that your wife's son is actually yours also is pseudo science as long as it hasn't been confirmed by a genetic test
btw don't forget that everything you see could be an illusion so wait for science to confirm it
The left-wing bias of Wikipedia
Shuichi Tezuka and Linda A. Ashtear
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
I have made a complete offline backup a while back (before woketards gained too much influence and ruined everything except for the most technical articles).
I'd recommend everyone to save an older snapshot of Wikipedia for future use. Wikimedia fortunately directly makes those available.
Wikipedia has done its due for the world. Allowing it to remain in the hands of those ideological morons will do no good, so it's better off dead.
t. stopped writing articles approximately 15 years back, since it slowly became a futile effort
one of the sad things about websites is the way they have to live on. undeath
I suppose IQfy is much the same.
>I suppose IQfy is much the same.
Nah, IQfy has been great all the time so far.
Except for the period when moot used ReCaptcha.
t. here since 2005
How far back do I have to go to get a “normal” copy?
NTA but I guess 15 years ago, which is what anon also indicates.
Even if they paid a good salary, would anyone ever actually want to be a Wikipedia admin
george the janitor
is this the complain about wikipedia thread
time to post about this again
>Zombie Land Saga is an idolshit anime that has one crossdressing character in it
>After the episode with the crossdressing reveal aired some literally who crunchyroll blogger wrote a blogpost about Lily being a trans character
>This blogpost and a few others were cited in the wikipedia article as evidence Lily is trans
>These blogposts were rightfully removed as sources after they were called into question
>but not the line about Lily being trans because that would be trans erasure and every single member of WikiProject TTTT now has an interest in keeping the line there
i hate it like you wouldn't believe
>2022
>anime
Why are you doing that to yourself?
Anime is dead. The borderline is approximately 2010.
You didn't like anime in 2010
I remember that being around the time when American streaming sites started appearing and American influence on anime production starting to increase.
It coincides with the start of many descents across the IQfy-sphere, so 2010 seems like an approximately right time-stamp for that.
The Monogataris were the final glimpse of the greatness of anime. I doubt we'll ever see that again.
>American influence on anime production starting to increase.
Meds, now. Every season we get westerners being assmad that some anime isn't conforming to their cultural views.
You simply got bored or out of touch with the medium around then and are assuming that it must have been because the content was changing instead of your own tastes.
I finally gave up on anime in 2020.
I don't remember the exact show that made me do it, but things simply didn't add up anymore.
And reading Japanese blogs, apparently Disney now has its first exclusive show. That's really the point at which you can proclaim anime dead without even a hint of exaggeration.
Frick America. Frick China. Frick anyone pretending that things are fine like they are, because they are clearly not.
>Apparently Disney now has its first exclusive show. That's really the point at which you can proclaim <japanese copy of disney> dead.
Aside from how nonsensical this statement is, why would all of anime be dead just because some of it is shit? Most of it has always been shit.
>Frick anyone pretending that things are fine like they are
No u
Rephrasing a statement you can make anything sound nonsensical.
Disney is completely unrelated to anime. Or rather: If you made anime a "copy of disney", you could equally call Hitler's World War II a "copy of disney".
Stop being moronic pretending that things are fine.
>Disney is completely unrelated to anime.
Making this statement only shows that you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about anime and that it was just a passing fad to you. Please follow your own advice and
>Stop being moronic
Literally the end of anime.
>I finally gave up on anime in 2020.
i'm gonna watch anime till i die
>Frick America. Frick China.
based
Wikipedia got partially pozzed because academia got pozzed as well. There's also the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation has a lot of useless bureaucrats.
No way
>collapse
I think the only way forward is to have a distributed Wiki system and then a layer to collate these and point out where the controversies lie.
We used to have distributed generals, that is a while ago now. So, time for more bread?
Last for frick wikipedia