Wikipedia Sucks!

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/common- ... edia/47269

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

Bbb23sucks wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 12:46 am

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/common- ... edia/47269

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

Bumping this because your thread title doesn't do it justice.

Another thread: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/definit ... s/48759/12

Seems like circular referencing is happening too.

So the point is; someone invents a name for a fish species and posts it on the WP article, it ends up on a "WP mirror" called inaturalist, and no one noticed for TWO YEARS? When someone does notice, "indefinite block for vandalism"? As far as I can tell, most of Alomomola's "common names" were properly sourced.

I've seen similar things before. Sometimes the "false info" is fixed and sometimes it sits on WP for years. And sometimes it's very difficult to determine if it's "false" or true. This is why I tell people, if you ReALLY wanna fuck with WP nitwits, write articles based on dead-tree book sources they can't google up.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 8:08 am

So the point is; someone invents a name for a fish species and posts it on the WP article, it ends up on a "WP mirror" called inaturalist, and no one noticed for TWO YEARS? When someone does notice, "indefinite block for vandalism"? As far as I can tell, most of Alomomola's "common names" were properly sourced.

I've seen similar things before. Sometimes the "false info" is fixed and sometimes it sits on WP for years. And sometimes it's very difficult to determine if it's "false" or true. This is why I tell people, if you ReALLY wanna fuck with WP nitwits, write articles based on dead-tree book sources they can't google up.

We have no idea if it's true, so let's keep it until someone comes along with a source which says otherwise.

boredbird wrote: ↑

Thu May 09, 2024 11:42 pm

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2024 8:08 am

So the point is; someone invents a name for a fish species and posts it on the WP article, it ends up on a "WP mirror" called inaturalist, and no one noticed for TWO YEARS? When someone does notice, "indefinite block for vandalism"? As far as I can tell, most of Alomomola's "common names" were properly sourced.

I've seen similar things before. Sometimes the "false info" is fixed and sometimes it sits on WP for years. And sometimes it's very difficult to determine if it's "false" or true. This is why I tell people, if you ReALLY wanna fuck with WP nitwits, write articles based on dead-tree book sources they can't google up.

We have no idea if it's true, so let's keep it until someone comes along with a source which says otherwise.

Reminds of this YT archeology blogger who was debunking a particular popular egregiously wrong TikTok personality about the Baghdad Battery. Well short version is that in general terms like how one might see faces in wood grain the vessel that was seemed like it might could be a battery. But another truly legit professional middle eastern archeologist who has access or knowledge of extremely rare books knew the details of exactly where the vessel was found and other details that aren't on the interwebs. So it's not a battery but just a part of a fairly typical funerary ritual

It also makes me think of the insane, abusive ways WP handles the creation and deletion of articles. Was reminded of this by the ugly story of the 2011 attempt to delete the Old Man Murray article.

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

Which mentions:

Much of the ire was focused on the Wikipedian who nominated the article for deletion, User:SchuminWeb. Ben Schumin, who runs a website called The Schumin Web, was alleged by many complaining about the nomination both on and off Wikipedia, including Beschizza and Walker, to have a conflict of interest because of past interactions with Chet Faliszek. Most of the complaints centered around a brief decade old comment mocking The Schumin Web on the website Portal of Evil, founded by Faliszek and K. Thor Jensen. (The Wikipedia article on Portal of Evil was also nominated for deletion by Schumin and deleted on February 5.)

In fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... al_of_Evil

Remember: Portal of Evil, stupid as it often was, also figures in the early history of the web. For Wikipedia to have nothing about POE is a disgusting failure. Any "general reference" that tries to be even half-complete about the early history of the World Wide Web would HAVE to mention POE somewhere.

They have an article about Mirsky's Worst of the Web, an even earlier satirical website that lasted less than 2 years and is almost TOTALLY forgotten now. POE lasted a lot longer, from 1999 to 2011. But Wikipedia will tell you nothing. They also have an article about rotten.com, which was a lot more disgusting and offensive than POE.

Because Ben Schumin, one of the worst Wikipedia administrators I have EVER seen, didn't like POE. It was PERSONAL. He was notorious for deleting content about anything or anyone he personally didn't like--and as a stereotypical WP leftist and hater of Scientology, he hated a lot of people and things, yet was treated with great deference on WP. Until he tried to kill the Old Man Murray article. Which made him an instant pariah. A year later, people had their fill of fat little Ben, and he was dragged to Arbcom. Being a very petty little nerd-man, and knowing his goose was fully roasted, Ben resigned rather than make a case. He was desysopped a few months later.

(Not mentioned at the time: Ben had also been using Wikipedia to "linkspam" references to his own stupid website. Most of those links were later removed. But fifty of them have survived to the present day. Anyone want to tell us why Ben Schumin's personal blog is a "reliable source"?)

"Luckily for us" Jensen didn't give up on the internet. He even sells t-shirts. Including this one. You can probably guess why.