Wikipedia Sucks!

Everyone knows Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, even the wikishits.

But for years now, they've had a favourite go to alternative excuse for having wasted years of their life on twiddling with fucking garbage.

Wikipedia is a good place to find reliable sources in the form of References, but isn't a reliable source in and of itself.

I've never gotten why teachers say "don't use Wikipedia" instead of "use Wikipedia as a starting point to find sources" and the like.

I found this utter shite on Wikipediocracy, a so called Wikipedia criticism site.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =6&t=12231

I hadn't realised until now, how totally normal it is on Wikipediocracy that this sort of completely made up nonsense, just passes unquestioned.

No debate, no argument. Just posted, and unquestioned.

As if it were actually true.

Hint: it isn't.

So, why isn't it being challenged? Well, I see three possibilities, all equally damaging for Jake.

If Jake was actually being paid to help Wikipedia these days, this is exactly how he would run a Wikipedia criticism site. Debunk the obvious shite, which he does earlier in that very thread, but the less obvious stuff, the stuff the civilians will be clueless about, stuff posted by addicted Wikipedia editors looking for a way to justify their miserable lives, well crafted propaganda that sounds like it might be true, well, just silently let it slide.

If he isn't being paid to let this slide, he might just be not wanting to upset his forum membership, which is largely made up of Wikipedia editors, with the harsh reality of their ridiculous existence. They aren't even helping humanity by building a useful starting point. Sucks to be them. Sucks to be a tool of the Foundation money making machine. Sucks to be an addict.

Or maybe he's just too thick to even know this is propaganda. He might even think it is true himself. You don't need to be a Wikipedia editor to know it's bullcrap, but you do need to have studied Wikipedia in great detail, to be able to formulate the argument that debunks it.

The lack of anyone else stepping in to say what needs to be said is just as bad for Jake, it being a sign his forum is suffering from him having fostered a culture such that the people who do know it is propaganda and would have pushed back, he has either banned, or they have just walked away. Those that remain, either believe it, or just don't care, having entirely different reasons for being there. Such as chasing the alleged socks of people who can and often do prove that Wikipedia isn't what it says it is.

Sucks to be you Jake.

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 07, 2021 7:33 pm

If Jake was actually being paid to help Wikipedia these days, this is exactly how he would run a Wikipedia criticism site. Debunk the obvious shite, which he does earlier in that very thread, but the less obvious stuff, the stuff the civilians will be clueless about, stuff posted by addicted Wikipedia editors looking for a way to justify their miserable lives, well crafted propaganda that sounds like it might be true, well, just silently let it slide.

It would NOT surprise me to learn that the WMF is now PAYING Jake and Wee Billy to keep WP discussion on their shitty little forum "happy" and "non-controversial". Easily believable. Now that the bastards in SF are rolling in mountains of cash, it would be a "minor consultant's fee" and a "legitimate business expense".

They appear to be following the classic Standard Oil "four Bs" method of dealing with critics: buy them out, bankrupt them, bribe them, break someone's legs. Anything. Whatever works. Never admit you might be in the wrong, never admit weakness, never admit your own rampant stupidity (and they still have plenty of institutional stupidity).

Now that poetlister gone, the majority of the posters are admins, arbs or members of tye WPO admin group. Just today at least 11 admins have posted, several of which are, or have been arbs.

Jake's paymaster has had his say...

Beeblebrox wrote:When I was in school we were told pretty much the same thing about paper encyclopedias. Good place to start if you know nothing about the topic, but absolutely not to be cited as a source in your paper.

I honestly can't tell if he's just being dumb, or he deliberately missed the point to try and make it seem like this is all just proof Wikipedia really is the equivalent of a paper encyclopedia.

Quite obviously, and it's a stark reminder of the sort of retard that Wikipedia is built by, teachers tell students to avoid citing paper encyclopedias because that's not really how you show your own research and interpretation skills. They tell them not to cite Wikipedia, because it's fucking junk. They tell people to use paper encyclopedias as a good starting point to familiarise yourself with a topic, because, and this will blow your mind people, THAT'S WHAT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA IS FOR. They tell people not to read Wikipedia, because it's fucking junk.

Over to you, Jake.

Correct your paymaster.

If you dare.