excellent blog post about mishandled military-history content

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

excellent blog post about mishandled military-history content

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:19 am

http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.c ... stern.html

If it's American and involves war, Wikipedia is usually highly detailed and obsessively accurate. Either the stuff mentioned on the blog isn't important, or the Military History Wikiproject is falling apart (I vote for the latter). The two major mainsprings (Lokshin and Roger Davies) have been scarce for years, and "Coordinators emeritus" my dick. Plus it's very funny to see that pathetic Randite asshole Headbomb hanging around the talkpage--which is now 155 archives long. Landry knows fuck-all about military anything.

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: excellent blog post about mishandled military-history content

Post by Strelnikov » Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:10 am

It's not just the military stuff, they have years-old tags on the California State University system, DIN 4420 which is a German standard for scaffolding on German construction sites (tag dates to 2009), DIN connectors (tag from 2011), etc. There are too many stub articles that can't get beyond that size because there aren't enough sources in English or there aren't enough sources period to please the Wikilawyers, so Wikipedia remains stub-filled and tagged. It's like finding new-old stock transistor radios from the '60s in a warehouse somewhere - the original shipping protection is on the boxes, and inside the radios and all the ephemera sit under plastic wrap.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

Post Reply