Wikipedia Is A Dire Warning Of What Happens When You Let Social Justice Freaks Take Over

Since I first began editing Wikipedia in 2004, I’ve observed its devolution (paralleling that of RationalWiki) from a rapidly-growing collaboration run by slightly left-of-center secular humanists, who at least attempted to allow their critics’ viewpoints some semblance of fair coverage, into a much more blatantly and unapologetically SJW-dominated platform that stifles dissent.

Events like the Manning naming dispute decision, and the rise of radically feminist administrators like Alison (NSFW), not to mention the egregiously unjustified decision at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Seduction to “friend zone this project, without even a number close”, pretty much told us the writing was on the wall.

Wikipedia has always had its critics and malcontents, many of whom have made it onto the list of banned users. What I see now, though, is that even those in charge of Wikipedia don’t take the project seriously anymore. The more thoughtful, reasonable, unbiased users have been driven away from the project, so that there are few left but a handful of aspergic monomanics who mostly toil away unnoticed on obscure topics, while leftist ideologues document every new development in the evolution of rape culture. Meanwhile, trolls who don’t seem to actually have any sincere ideological ax to grind are the most actively involved in the day-to-day management of the project. High-ranking Wikipedians even admit that they toy with users for the lulz.

Probably the most honest, straightforward, and succinct guidebook to how Wikipedia actually works is Wikipedia:WikiSpeak. It notes that on Wikipedia, “conflict of interest” refers to “Editing an article on any subject that you actually understand. Uncommon, and sanctionable, expertise.”

Adding content to Wikipedia has always has been a frustrating, disappointing experience. It’s always been a challenge to make even high-quality content stick. And there have always been dickheads around whose attitudes have made the experience less pleasant. Yet, in recent years, it seems to have gotten worse.

The Rise of Paid Wikipedia Editing

As the number of volunteers willing to edit Wikipedia has been declining, there’s been increased interest in paid editing. If you build up a reputation for quality work, you can make hundreds or thousands of dollars per article writing on behalf of companies, organizations, people, etc. who want you to handle their Wikipedia reputation management. You just write the article, have one of your many on-call meatpuppets post it to Wikipedia for you, and collect your payment.

Plus you can have the client sign up to pay you an annual fee for continuing to edit the article on their behalf as needed. The reason the pay is so high is that only a few people are familiar enough with the labyrinthine complexities of Wikipedia rules and culture to be able to successfully navigate the process. There’s an alphabet soup of obscure Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays, each with its own acronym, that Wikipedians make reference to in discussions.

Theoretically, if you’re a paid editor, you’re supposed to publicly disclose your clients, your connection to them, and the edits you make on their behalf. But that’s sort of like accepting a girl’s invitation to tell her about your emotional vulnerabilities. It’s not going to end well. Just like she’ll lose respect, Wikipedia’s vigilantes will treat you with disrespect too.

A lot of Wikipedia administrators and their friends have made a hobby, or at least an amusing pastime, out of griefing those paid editors who diligently followed the rules by revealing their “conflicts of interest.” Some of their trolling techniques are straight out of the SJW playbook. For example, consider the action by perpetual drama instigator Jytdog, which I present as a case study.

Jytdog v. Janweh64: Armageddon Over an Imaginary Breach of Protocol

Like a whiny girlfriend, Wikipedia’s SJW-style trolls distract from civilization-building by picking fights over nothing.

Paid editor Janweh64 has been reported to  Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents for following Wikipedia’s exhortations to “be bold” and “ignore all rules” by moving to the mainspace an article draft that pretty much everyone agrees doesn’t contain anything objectionable. The beef people have with him is more procedural than substantive, making Janweh64 arguably in the right since supposedly “Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy“.

The wiki way is that if you have a problem with someone’s actions, you simply revert them with an edit summary explaining why, and then he can open a discussion if he wants to reinstate the changes he made. This tried-and-true method of wiki interaction, called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, allows problems to be fixed quickly and with minimal drama. It was by empowering individual users in this way that Wikipedia was able to leap ahead of Encyclopedia Britannica to become the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world.

But SJWs, and those who take inspiration from their techniques, can never let a mistake (or a perceived mistake) go so easily. They’re like the women Sean Connery described who “can’t leave it alone. They want to have the last word. Then you give them the last word, but they’re not happy with the last word. They want to say it again and get into a really provocative situation.” Now that the “point and shriek” stage of the SJW-style attack is complete, Jytdog seeks to elicit an apology:

This path of acting aggressively in order to support your paid editing and then arguing fiercely to defend your aggressiveness is just going to lead to an indefinite block per NOTHERE. None of the volunteers here want to waste time any time at all dealing with this, which is just about you making money. Don’t you get that? What little patience people have, you exhaust by doing this. There are some paid editors who disclose what they are doing, and who “get it” and create no drama and they add value to WP. You could have been one of them, perhaps. Not what you are choosing… so be it. . . . .

The way out of this particular hole is just to say “Hey, I get it. I am sorry. I will not move my own paid articles to main space anymore, but will appeal through normal channels if I feel an AfC review was unfair. Again, my apologies for creating drama. It is important to me that I remain in good standing with everybody. ” Something like that. but mean it, and do it, and don’t do stuff that causes people to drag you here.

In response to this, Janweh64 actually bends over and gives him the apology:

In light of the new changes/clarification here by Jydog on March 13 to WP:COI, I will not move my own paid articles to main space anymore, but will appeal through normal channels if I feel an AfC review was unfair. My apologies for creating drama, again. It is important to me that I remain in good standing with everybody. I was truly unaware and not informed of these changes to this guideline specifically made after just a mere 20 days from my previous ANI, which was archived unclosed.

Janweh64 is making the exact statement that Jytdog just suggested he make, almost verbatim, while also pointing out in his own defense that Jytdog recently made a change to the rules without notifying him. Jytdog continues the attack, using the SJW “Reject and Transform” strategy in which the apology is promptly rejected because it is not the action, but the actor, that is the real target:

Janweh your response promises that this particular problem will end, which is a good thing but the rest of what you write there is argumentative and… horrible. The prior ANI thread from only two months ago was also called “Paid editor moving own drafts to mainspace” and in that thread several editors told you the same thing you have been told here.

In other words, every single editor who commented there and here wasted their time. That is what you just communicated. That you are going to treat WP guidelines and policies like “rulebooks” that you will exploit as hard as you can in order to make money here, and you will ignore community feedback.

That is nothing like what I advised you to write. You can let your comment stand or strike it, but you should be aware of how bad for you, your post was.

Endercase Rectifies The Situation

Finally, Endercase, a user who currently is under remedial “mentorship” (aka wiki-probation) and probably will end up getting banned at some point for fraternizing with unpersons and being too much of an outspoken wiki-dissident, chimes in and flips the script:

@Jytdog: This user is nothing like you appear to portray them in your above statement. “You can let your comment stand or strike it, but you should be aware of how bad for you, your post was.” They have declared COI and they are following policy/consensus to the best of their understanding. You have “won” here, I do not understand your apparent hostility nor your apparent failure to AGF. IMO this should have never been brought to AN/I (where it wastes our time) clearly (IMO) just having a discussion on the user’s talk page would have sufficed… I agree with your sentiment, just not the methods that have been used and are suggested to be used here.

Having been called out, Jytdog decides to back away rather than risk overreaching and exposing himself to counterattack. But of course, he doesn’t apologize for his own personal attacks (since that would just draw attention to the fact that he arguably broke the civility rules), and he gets in a few final digs before leaving, in keeping with the SJW principle that “They always double down when confronted with their lies”:

…this issue of moving their own paid articles to mainspace has arisen again. The first instance was semi-understandable. That this 2nd thread exists at all is hard to understand, as is the slipping back into the fierce arguing to justify marginal behavior. That this 2nd thread ended with with them making a wikilawyering argument half-justifying that this happened again, is bad for them. It is on the path where they lose.

I do agree that this thread should be closed. I still hope that Janweh has the good sense to strike and make a more clueful statement before that happens, but if they choose to let it stand, so be it.

Janweh64 is thus being once again blamed for provoking “drama,” and is being extended one last invitation to engage in some more ritual self-abasement that can later be used against him, in the vein of, “Janweh64 even admitted last time that he was in the wrong, but instead of changing his behavior after being warned twice, now he has made it necessary to open up a third thread. When will we finally say, enough is enough?”

Wiki-Vigilantes Encourage Paid Editors to Turn to the Dark Side

Hire some meatpuppets, and do some undisclosed paid Wikipedia editing, and your journey toward the dark side will be complete.

What may eventually happen is that Janweh64 will get fed up and become an undisclosed paid editor (as he should have done from the beginning). His growing awareness of the inequity is evident in his comment, “you are punishing me for declaring my COI religiously when 1000s of others are right now editing with no declaration.” He’s beginning to unplug and take the wiki-red pill, as he sees how counterproductive it is to be the nice guy who follows the rules. How long before he tires of seeing the bad boys get all the wiki-pussy while he wiki-masturbates?

Jytdog has been called out before for, interestingly enough, “trying to own the discussion at Talk:Jews” and a cursory review of the archives reveals that the same group of defenders shows up whenever he gets accused of anything. This is part of a larger pattern in which users who are members of the same clique as the administrators get forgiven for their “innocent mistakes,” while others get banned however abjectly they apologize for their trivial (or imaginary) transgressions.

Like prosecutors, the administrators interpret the rules broadly to proscribe their adversaries’ behavior, and interpret rules narrowly that contain exceptions the accused might cite in their defense. They demand strict application of rules when doing so favors their side; but call for flexibility to depart from the rules when that would suit their purpose instead. Meanwhile, in accordance with the SJW tactic “Isolate and Swarm”, users like Endercase who have an inconvenient habit of pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes get marked for elimination.

It used to be that, despite Wikipedia’s flaws, it was still a place where you could have some useful accomplishments as a content creator. But now, while spergs continue to quietly build about 90 percent of Wikipedia’s useful content, outside of areas like biology, science, medicine, the War of 1812, etc., Wikipedia has mostly devolved into a playground for entryist SJW trolls. Meanwhile, the donations continue rolling in from well-meaning chumps.

Nonetheless, Wikipedia has a lot of useful infrastructure, built up by many unsung heroes in the MediaWiki development community. So I would say, the best strategy is that (1) if you want to make money as a paid editor, go ahead and take advantage of this “enjoy the decline” situation through undisclosed conflict-of-interest editing; and (2) if you like creating content and have nothing better to do, go ahead and add articles to Wikipedia, but save copies of your content for reposting to Infogalactic, Kings Wiki, or whatever other niche wiki would be appropriate, in the event of deletion. And of course, (3) munch popcorn and enjoy watching the lulzfest that is Wikipedia’s kafkaesque online dystopia, if you’re sick enough to be into that kind of thing.

Read More: Introducing Kings Wiki, A Wikipedia For Us

80 thoughts on “Wikipedia Is A Dire Warning Of What Happens When You Let Social Justice Freaks Take Over”

  1. Dude, do we really need more warnings against SJWs? Everything they touch turns to shit. It is a scientific fact!
    To be honest, I don’t care about the internal politics at Wikipedia. The only reason I use the site is to get basic information about things. For more in-depth information, I turn to good books. Besides, it is not like they can politically correct the entirety of that site.

    1. I think some sort of warning is valid, and in the long run society should try to stop these outlets of knowledge from being/getting tainted by people with axes to grind and agendas to enforce. The problem is that others are not turning to any other sources the way you are. No one buys actual encyclopedias anymore, so Wiki is on the the leading edge of a paradigm shift:

  2. I knew parts of Wikipedia were going down the tubes when spinsters with way too much time on their hands decided to spend ENTIRE WEEKENDS lashing out with the editing knife in exhaustive Edit-a-thons:
    Most men simply don’t have enough time on their hands to keep up with the “info-devastation” (or assault on logic and rationality) being carried out on Wiki because we have real shit to do in life. In the meantime, have no doubt the bitter feminist SJWs will be playing their biases as “objectivity for the 21st century.” The insidious part is that most people (especially kids) view encyclopedic entries as objective fact, because this is how the medium was always intended in the past. Now it contains a pile of skew because SJWs are relentless in their desire to alter facts, change the past, and indoctrinate the youth with mind games. They would argue that we do the same. All part of a zero-sum game between the genders in first world countries, IMO.

    1. The insidious part is that most people (especially kids) view encyclopedic entries as objective fact, because this is how the medium was always intended in the past. Now it contains a pile of skew because SJWs are relentless in their desire to alter facts, change the past, and indoctrinate the youth with mind games.

      Succinctly put. This was my own gloomy conclusion after trying to rectify a Wikipedia entry (described in my comment above).

      1. Your main post was solid (I saw this afterward)…you were in the Wiki trenches, doing the hard stuff. Ever forward…

    2. “Now it contains a pile of skew because SJWs are relentless in their desire to alter facts, change the past, and indoctrinate the youth with mind games. They would argue that we do the same.”
      Change the SJW to ISIS and I wouldn’t have seen any difference.

  3. Interesting to hear the internal mechanisms of Wikipedia, you (the author) seem to expect our audience to understand most of these finer points and quarrels which I am sure most readers here at ROK no nothing of. But it is interesting non the less and I am glad article like these exist here.
    The rot exists in all spheres and institutions. I myself witness it everyday at university thinking about starting a youtube channel/blog where I discuss all the nonsense SJW students and professes peddle.
    Also I am curious, are you simply naming SJW tactics yourself, is there a guidebook? Is it Rules for Radicals?

    1. My 2 cents on your final question: The techniques stem directly from Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” by using the power to annoy and vex in various ways.
      I think it was the modern philosopher Eric Hoffer who once said that things like this represent “the talent to annoy the strong…it’s a talent of the weak-minded, but a talent nonetheless.” I highly recommend Eric Hoffer to all ROK readers.

      1. With the Frenchies losing today it looks like it is more than just “annoying the strong”. The strong are the ones in charge and so they are trying to devalue their opposition with these tactics. They are trying to hold onto their power. If Wikipedia really does go down it could be disastrous. Professors used to prevent it at a source but when that source starts parroting their narratives it might become the go to resource of the future (or something like it)
        I should check out both Rules and Eric Hoffer, thank you.

    2. He seems to be referring at least tangentially to “SJWS Always Lie” . See Amazon.
      At least I think he hit Lie, Project and Double down…

  4. Leftist faggots are pretty good at branding their turd ideology.
    “RATIONAL wiki”
    “Social JUSTICE”
    Don’t you support rationality? Don’t you support justice? What are you some kind of backwoods hick, racist, sexist, Nazi?
    The right can actually learn a lot from these trickeries.
    EDIT: removed “warrior”

    1. The acronym SJW wasn’t branded by actual sjw’s. the “Warrior” in SJW is what makes the term derogatory, since they can’t be real warriors.

      1. Remove the “warriors”.
        But the “social justice” came from them.

  5. BTW I just want to give props to the author…this was an intellectually-rigorous piece and you did a ton of background work. It helped clear up a thorny labyrinth of confusion as it pertains to Wiki. Thank you.

    1. It didn’t really help clear anything up. Unless you understand most of this jargon. Interesting nonetheless.

      1. On the face of it I see what you’re saying. For me, the article required due diligence side-work beyond what is typically required with other ROK articles. I had to pop open nearly all of the out-links to get a proper framework and context going (and resolve jargon, for sure). Then I had to search a little beyond those out-links to other articles. If it weren’t a Sunday morning with a belly full of bacon and eggs and an hour of downtime, I’m not sure I would have had the patience.
        Since “disinformation” and SJW propaganda is high on my priority list, this piece deserved the time investment.

        1. I agree it would take more of a personal effort to get more out of it. I am glad you were inspired to do so. I really am glad stuff like this sits alongside “10 photos of degenerate feminists” and such it really shows a spectrum of topics available on the site.

  6. Rosie the Riveter is a symbol of American women joining the workforce to fill in for large number of men who went away to fight and die in WWII. Today it’s a popular Halloween costume for feminists who take it out of context.

    1. I remember reading somewhere on the interwebs that the woman who posed for the “Rosie the Riveter” photo only actually worked in the factory for a week or so then went off to pursue a career playing the violin. Sounds about right to me…

    2. I once dated a self proclaimed feminist who had a “Rosie the Riveter” patch on her jacket, a “Rosie the Riveter” lunch box, and even dressed up as her on Halloween one year. She also loved to be choked and slapped around during sex, go figure.

    3. Good point. Shame on these kind of women. The so called femicunts “wept & broken_into_tears !!!” when Donald Trump got Elected as the President. How many of these shameless losers did the same thing when:
      Military MEN lost their limbs, hands, eyes and LIVES fighting (for the People of this Country) with the terrorists ?
      When Five MALE On-Duty Police Officers were killed in a protest ?
      Guess what, these shameless losers might have thanked the GOD for not being born as MALES !!

  7. Heterosexualty: Oppressive and fascist institution.
    Transgenderism: Natural and beautiful.
    Jokes aside, Wiki could be a good idea in principle, but handing over the ability to define scientific concepts to wholly unscientific leftist cocksuckers is a recipe for disaster.
    Like asking a basket weaver to build a jet engine. In reality there are safeguards against this kind of bollocks … in hard science at least. And for a for a fucking good reason. Do you want a plane carrying 500 passengers to be captained by a hard-faced ex military pilot who knows everything inside out; or Trayvon Martin because he happened to be black??
    Let’s extend this hard science thinking to female/social sciences

    1. There’s no peer review of the editors, so there’s no quality control. The left is like that; in order to dismiss the entire whole of human history, you have to be arrogant and delusional. Many people cease to be liberals when they become grounded in reality. This is why engineers and scientists are right wing, they let the data drive their judgments, not drive the data with their judgments.

      1. Hell yeah. Try lift a fucking rocket off the ground and hit escape velocity based on Muh Feelz …

      2. One of the major issues in my eyes the that the “left” “SJW” types work together in formation and everyone else gets isolated and thus powerless. If enough users stuck up for eachother’s rights there would be little to no issue. Bans that are not for the express and obvious purpose of preventing harm to the encylopedia need to be resisted with all our might IMO. Admin that abuse their power to push POV or even to protect their power need to be taken down a few notches. Admin tools are often abused IMO as they are only intended to enforce clear consensus and rarely used as such.

      3. Winston Churchill said: “If your not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re old, you have no brain.”
        Speaking of conservative scientists, no less than Maggie Thatcher was a bio-chemist researcher before she went into politics.

    2. “Do you want a plane carrying 500 passengers to be captained by a hard-faced ex military pilot who knows everything inside out; or Trayvon Martin because he happened to be black??”
      Hmm. I gather this isn’t too far from the truth. Major airlines fast-track women pilots, so they get hired pretty much straight out of training, whereas men go through the usual route of flying cargo, then regional airlines, before finally (if they are lucky) getting hired by one of the majors. If you get on a plane, the captain starts to do ‘his’ spiel, and it is a woman, worry.

  8. At least Encyclopedia Dramatica makes fun of everyone and are not bent too much on picking sides. Even Roosh has an article.

    1. It used to be at least, lately I haven’t found it amusing anymore because it’s either just too immature (used to more satire in the past), and it’s also becoming more and more SJW.

        1. Look at different articles that are recent and compare them to older ones. Like the Donald Trump one is obviously new for example, to me it looks like it’s written by a SJW trying to be funny, or some kid trying to be funny (more immature than satire). Then compare to older ones such as Ian Smith/Rhodesia, let me quote:
          Actually I can’t quote, I just realized the entire Zimbabwe article has been update to be much less funny.
          One of the past quotes was for examples how the great scientists of ZImbabwe had crafted a bread worth millions of dollars lol.

        2. As wikis mature, they tend to become less funny as they take themselves more seriously.

        3. Or there was a limited number of people and a limited number of (funny) articles to begin with.
          Then more people wanted to participate not being as funny, perhapds kids etc. Social justice warriors noticed here was a fun site joking about racist stuff and people liking it, let’s change it to leftie stuff and hope no-one notices.
          I wouldn’t say ED has matured, it has just become a mouthpiece of the left. With some of the old trappings remaining.

  9. Unsurprising, as everything the left and SJWs with no income but vast amounts of free time to spend on the internet touch degenerates into crap.

    1. …everything the left and SJWs with no income but vast amounts of free time to spend on the internet touch degenerates into crap

      Exactly my experience of Wikipedia (see my comment above).

      1. Just read what happened to you. I can share the same frustration as something similar happened to me many years ago.
        One simply can’t defeat a person who has no life other than fucking up things with SJW ideology 24/7. It’s as if these useless morons don’t sleep or eat.

  10. Is Wikipedia a perfect example of O’Sullivan’s Law
    in action?

  11. Well wikipedia is still really good for mathematics and hard sciences. It has derivations of equations, etc.

    1. Indeed it still holds importance for most statistical and historical/biographical references that are beyond the reach of interpretation. Thankfully the square mileage of Chile and the state bird of Wyoming aren’t open to interpretation (yet) 😉
      Then there’s Wolfram Alpha as a level-up on math/science needs. Does anyone have an SJW-related beef with Wolfram Alpha (serious question)?

      1. Wiki tried to tell me that the Battle of Camden was an American victory….

      2. 1 = a number
        2 = a number
        therefore, 1=2
        If you don’t agree with that it’s because of your HETERONORMATIVE BIGOTRY!

        1. What about me if I want to be a 3? Who says I have to be a 1 or 2? If you don’t agree with me, that’s Transnumeric Bigotry!

    2. Isn’t there a socially just branch of Maths yet where 1 + 1 can be equal to whatever you want such that mentally challenged snowflakes won’t feel too dumb? That’s surprising.

  12. One of the major issues in my eyes is that the “left” “SJW” “authoritarian” types often work together in formation. Everyone else gets isolated they are then “powerless” to resist. If enough users stuck up for eachother’s rights there would be little to no issue. Bans that are not for the express and obvious purpose of preventing harm to the encylopedia need to be publicly and vocally resisted IMO. Admin that abuse their power to push POV need to be taken down a few notches. Admin tools are often abused, they are only intended to enforce clear consensus and rarely used as such. I got banned (72hrs) just for publicly and civilly talking to the apparent author of this article about policy, that kind of behavior is unacceptable. Talking to another user about policy (rules) should never be punished.

  13. Any open system will be infiltrated and corrupted by Jews. It’s one of the natural laws of the universe. Predatory parasites continually scan for opportunities to infect. Our White, democratic, open societies give them more opportunities for infiltration and subversion than they know what to do with.

  14. watch out for it came into being specifically to avoid the wikepedia SJW infestation.

  15. Wikipedia needs more direction from the top. As WikiTruth put it, “It’s like someone created a great sports car and then made it so that it had 408 steering wheels and a random button that says ‘skid uncontrollably’.”
    Or as Roosh pointed out, if you want smooth sailing, it’s important to have a captain rather than letting the ship be controlled by the mob.

  16. About ten years ago, I looked up the Wikipedia entry of a very minor and hardly known conservative author whose work I quite liked. The page was a complete Leftist hatchet-job and it infuriated me.
    So I found out how to edit the thing, and set about bringing some balance to the entry.
    It was only a matter of hours before my edits were all removed and the hatchet-job put back up. So I tried again. …And the same thing happened. I signed up for an account, and tried again, and had a long argument on the “Talk” page with the Leftist who was removing my edits.
    …All to little avail.
    The idiot (who went by the rather telling name “RedThoreau”) clearly spent all his/her/its time monitoring the page and others like it — whether he/she/it was just an ideological zealot or was actually paid to do so by, say, one of George Soros’s NGOs, I don’t know, but whatever the case, I saw it was futile trying to set the record straight.
    In the end, I contacted the subject of the page/hatchet-job (i.e. the conservative author whose work I liked), and told him about the problem and my battles with the editor. He thanked me for trying, but said that he’d given up on Wikipedia.
    …So I gave up. A few months later, I had a rather desperate-sounding e-mail from him, in which he bewailed the fact that the Leftist/Marxist who was editing/guarding his Wikipedia entry was now writing barefaced lies about him on it, and there seemed to be nothing he could do about it.
    Wikipedia has become a venue for Orwellian re-editing of the truth.

    1. Fuckin’-A man…supreme frustration all around. In the non-physical sense, you received the treatment Orwell himself described so well:
      “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”
      –G. Orwell

      1. Thanks: you put your finger on it — “supreme frustration” describes it perfectly. …When you know that the “official version” is false, but, try as you might, you cannot put the record straight. I looked for some higher authority at Wikipedia to whom I could appeal, but after searching the documentation, I came to the conclusion that there wasn’t much I could do. …As presumably did the subject of the page, given his frustration at being trashed/defamed by his Wikipedia entry. I’m unsure what he did in the end — by that time, I’d had my fill of it.

        1. I think we’ve witnessed the passing of the Internet’s Golden Age. Between Dictator governments censoring what gets through, our own governments spying on our web surfing and SJW’s posting all kinds of horse-shit, I believe that we are now entering the Post Information Age era. We are devolving as a species right before our own eyes.

    2. Wikipedia is not to an objective source of information. I recall more than a few professors stating they would not accept Wikipedia as valid citations if used in term papers for that very reason.

      1. Wikipedia isn’t a valid source because it’s not a source any more than Plebbit is a source for news. It’s a summary page and an aggregate for other sources. You’re not supposed to source another student’s report; you’re supposed to source their sources directly.
        Wikipedia is immensely helpful once you understand that everything important that you actually need to check is in the page of fine print and citations at the bottom of the article. Those are citations for papers.

  17. And people dismiss similar tactics used on discussion boards, comment sections and chatrooms as paranoid ‘conspiracy’.

  18. I would have thought it was evident when Wikipedia started holding mass feminist editing events.

  19. Let’s organise an attack on the feminsm page and keep editing the whole page into a single line that reads: “Feminism is cancer”

  20. I was the guy who changed the “Battle of Camden” from “American victory”, to “British victory” like wtf.

  21. Who the fuck cares? When wikipedia goes far left nazi, stop fucking using it. How fucking hard is that?

  22. By their own admission, RationalWiki is a satirical, comical parody. It isn’t serious encyclopedia.

  23. wikipedia is still a pretty good source for things that have nothing to do with politics, like looking up basic concepts of certain branches of science, I used to look up computer science things and mathematical theorems and definitions

  24. One of the downsides of the Information Age is that any idiot with a computer, which nowadays means any idiot, can go trolling around causing trouble just because…
    This was seen over a decade ago
    Idiots can’t help thinking that they know better than an actual expert and now that you’ve given them the power to edit a reference that’s practically quoted as gospel (even medical doctors consult Google and Wikipedia for diagnosing illnesses), you can alter the perception of truth itself. Because most people don’t bother reading anything substantive and handwriting is becoming a lost art (thanks to texting a leet speak), some have said we’re entering a new Dark Age.

  25. There was a weeks-long back and forth cuckwar with these Social Jewstice faggots blocking something as simple as updating the photograph of the US President to something that actually looked decent, as opposed to the deliberately shit angle chosen by (((CNN))) for their propaganda reels.
    There will not be enough helicopters to keep up with the demand for all the free rides.

Comments are closed.