Like I'm really gonna donate to this place when my (completely

>>57809892
>why do they revert muh joo conspiracies

>>57809892
I haven't tried to edit a wiki page for years, seriously nearly a decade. Are they still this bad? From what I remember all the mods basically act like they're the only ones allowed to edit anything, unless you argue the shit out of it on the talk page for days until they get bored.

I won't deny it's one of the best websites in the history of the internet, but fuck me the culture is beyond toxic.

File: page revisions.png (168KB, 1570x756px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1570x756px

>>57809986
I expanded some of the pages on US history and this kept happening every time. I'm convinced by now that this Hmains thing isn't a person, it's a bot that automatically reverts pages and always posts the exact same message about unsourced/unhelpful edits.

>>57809928
Wikipedia editor detected.

Wikipedia horror stories?

>back in 2009
>edit some pages on the Civil War
>guy keeps reverting them because unsourced and historical fiction (whatever that means)
>2012, three years later
>I go and edit the page on the Battle of Antietam and...surprise, the exact same guy reverts it

I'm not making this up. All that time and the same douche was _still_ patrolling that stupid page.

>>57809986
>Are they still this bad?
Mmmm hmmm.

>edit page on 2008 election
>since I want to be encyclopedic and fair, I include criticisms of both Obama and McCain
>go back a week later
>my edits weren't reverted, but all the negative stuff about Obama was removed while all the stuff about McCain was left untouched

Still haven't seen this.

>>57809986
I remember /m/ used to have edit wars with an autist called Ryulong. Even after he was banned (because of Gamergate edit war), he still had his cronies revert everyone's edits on Kamen Rider and Toku articles.

The thing with wikipedia isn't "SJWism", but rather that admins are a cabal, and they decide what goes in what doesn't. Also they all have "pet pages" that they never let anyone edit. Wikipedia has less and less editors every year because the people higher ups keep shooing everyone away.

I edited some pages on the space program, and I had a whole bunch of stuff I wanted to add to the Apollo 13 page because it was a little skimpy, but oh wait, I can't...it's permalocked because of vandalism.

>>57810703

>Cabal

Shush goyim there is no such thing.

I've fixed pages with obvious mistakes on them and gotten the thing reverted for being unsourced.

Yeah I'm not kidding. They'd rather have a page with blatant factual errors than it not have a source in there.

>>57809892
>Wikipedia
>facts
TOP FUCKING KEK

>>57810815
On the other hand, I put in a bunch of added detail about the Challenger Disaster and they're all still there.

>>57809928
>conspiracies

>>57810453
Did you really expect more from SJWikipedia?

I've made a few edits to pages about bands, included a source and they're still there.

It sounds like you guys need to include your sources.

>>57811082
>bands
Nobody cares about bands, non-mainstream celebrities and 2nd-3rd world politicians.
You could write that they have 3 penises and nobody will ask for a source, unless it gets noticed by the media and it gets announced as a fact.

>>57811143
It doesn't change the fact that literally all these posts have not mentioned adding a source but did mention they got reverted for unsourced material

>>57810059
Why didn't you reference your shit then?

You think this is autistic? Try backing up shit in front of a court. Got way easier for me when I started suing companies to force them to prove their innocence in a way that helps me

File: 1477772290583.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>Host a subtle fake article at some website regarding some fella
>Edit wikipedia article providing my own website as source
>Edit stays
>Years later be watching the news while having lunch
>A scandal pops out and my fake edits are used as source by the media

>>57811205
Since Hmains is probably a bot, I would most likely get my edits reverted regardless.

>>57810703
>less and less editors every year

[citation needed]

>>57810453
What criticisms do you mean?

>>57811191
Even if they did have sources, if it's in someone's pet-project domain, you can't change them or even make them objective. Like >>57810453 mentioned.

>>57811229
links or gtfo

>>57811233
Sure. Bot users do run on wikipedia. What if they made a bot that checks your text for superscript [numbers] and kills your edit if there are none?

Sounds like an easily doable project, even though it feels like a souless bureaucracy that rejects a document because the handwriting is a little too bold in one spot.

I've added info on some poisons to wikidata, sourced them, AND added info about the sources themselves, the original research papers providing the figures. Pretty sure they're still there.

>>57811249
You know...I mentioned how Obama was accused of being too inexperienced, having ties to leftist radicals, Reverend Wright, etc. And to be objective, I noted how they said McCain was too old and a lot of people didn't like Sarah Palin.

So like I said, all the stuff about Obama was removed but the stuff about McCain and Palin weren't. I also had a remark in there about Palin being royally shit on by the liberal media that was taken out.

>>57809928
They're never seeing another dime from me after how they handled GamerGate.

The entire "high level" edit staff there are mentally ill gender studies graduates who serve as the SJW politburo.

Wikipedia has drifted too far from its purpose. It's trying to live up to its "authoritative" reputation and become way too bureaucratic, which is just completely misguided. The content should be forked and the site should die.

>>57809892
>donate anyways
>still get spammed
So much regret, I only donated because of how much I use wikipedia and it was only $3.

Fuck them, I'm not giving them 1c more.

>>57810703
FEWER. IT'S FEWER NOT LESS.

FUCK.

IT'S LITERALLY ALL OVER AGAIN.

File: IMG_20161203_120233_393.jpg (132KB, 1080x1041px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1080x1041px

>>57811413

>>57811423
But guess who won the battle on literally?

Apparently the page on Adolf Hitler is the second most edited one on the entire site.

>>57811398

>The content should be forked
>passive voice
>always somebody gotta do things

Lel lets see YOU fork wikipedia. You wouldn't pay for a single month of hosting.

>>57811476
Waiting on IPFS

But the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast throttles uploading to 5kb a second.

It's stupid. Sometimes you can edit a page all day every day, never source anything, and it's there 5 years later completely untouched. But other pages get insta-reverted always.

>>57811492
>IPFS wiki

my sides nobody will give a fuck

>>57811398
>gamergate

cry more /v/irgin

>>57809892

I made an anonymous edit in January 2016, and it's still there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_triangle_(mathematics)&action=history

---------------

On the other hand, it's been about 10 years since I first reported that the Webster dictionary's definition of "prime number" is bullshit (I gave them about 12 URLs from authoritative sources that directly contradicted their erroneous claim that negative integers are considered to be "prime"), and I got a nice e-mail response from them, but they haven't fixed it yet:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prime%20number

>>57811529
Donglegate then.

>>57810815
Not Wikipedia, but I had gotten b& from the NASA Spaceflight Forums for apparently posting factually incorrect stuff. Ok, I just reset my router and made a new account, tried to fact check stuff better. In other words, learn from my mistakes if they're that anal.

Nope, they re-banned me for ban evasion even though I had a completely different user name and did nothing to give away that I was the original guy they banned.

What. The. Fuck. Was. That.

English wikipedia is pretty shitty. If there are two nations involved in an article the whole discussion page is just a huge shitfest filled with nationalists from both sides who fight about edits.

How accurate is Wikipedia?

>>57811608
Don't edit pages on the Balkan Wars in the 90s. Ever.

In fact, don't edit pages about the Israel-Palestine conflict either.

>>57811616
As accurate as it's references.

>>57811598
NSF is elitist as fuck. But you should probably have fact checked better.

>>57811632
A lot of people say that it isn't accurate at all, since anyone can edit or make changes.

all these faggot pol manchild triggered by fucking wikipedia, pathetic

>>57811634
I probably should have, but that was complete bull that I would get rebanned for ban evasion as I tried to be more careful the second time. Also I didn't go out and say I was the original banned guy, so how the fuck could they have known it was me? I was careful to not do things like reference previous posts of mine with the first account I made and whatnot.

>>57811326
>I've added info

Just checked my edits and not only are they still there, people have expanded them and included a lot more info.

Sounds like you guys just like editing pages about absolute bullshit like history and whatever random antifeminist movement you know of. It's no wonder you get into ridiculous edit wars.

Start being credit to society by adding actual scientific facts and you'll just stop having problems. Ain't nobody who can argue with a direct quotation from a scientific article.

>>57811648
A lot of people are retarded.

>>57811690
Yea I know

>>57811688
I freaking edited pages on early US history, like in the 1830s. I doubt that that's as controversial as editing the page on Hillary Clinton.

File: wikipedia.png (155KB, 1575x814px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1575x814px

>>57811688

>>57811706
So you edited humanities bullshit. That totally doesn't attract humanities faggots.

Edit some shit about medicine.

>>57811688
yea but then i cant participate in culture war which is the real reason i want to edit wikipedia

>>57811719
lyl

>>57811719
Yeah so what? Even I can understand why trying to edit that page is obviously such a bad idea. Why the shit would you even try?

You people are complaining about your inability to be a faggot.

>>57811781
If I was the wikipedia admin I'd shadowban you.

Don't edit pages on religion either. Another huge no-no.

My professor once mentioned during a lecture how his edits were reverted and how he stopped bothering with that site then.

>>57811810
I didn't edit the page, I just posted it for lulz.

>>57809928
>conspiracies
Wikipedia jews still claim that Pizzagate is fake. They're full of shit.

Wikimedia Foundation is an SJW/feminist company that's pushing that toxic ideology.

>>57811598
Cookies

>>57811616
The most obscure articles are the most accurate.

File: wikipedia.png (161KB, 1568x823px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1568x823px

Here's another good one.

>tfw Wikipedia is literally the only website i donate to regularly

Imagine a website where everyone does it for free.

>>57811598
Cookies?

>>57811867
Like for example the pages on Thor missiles I expanded, unless they get reverted by this guy Bilcat, whom I suspect of being a NSF poster because there's a dude there by the name of Catldr.

>>57811887
Feels like you're a faggot.

>>57811826
Professor of what? Did he source his edits?

Just because he's a professor doesn't mean he's an authority on Wikipedia. He's just some user. Nobody there can actually verify his authority and really the probability of his shit being wrong isn't zero at all. People in position of authority spout bullshit all the time. I regularly work around mistakes made by people like these.

>>57811398
>GamerGate.

Jesus fuck I just read that Wikipedia article.

It reads like a SJW manifesto that was reworked to give it the façade of an encyclopedia article.

It pretty much equates any criticism of people like Sarkeesian with "harassment". As if it's simply not possible for a person to disagree with Sarkeesian's viewpoints without being "threatening" or a "misogynist".

Most of my edits are still there. But I usually only add or update data to existing tables. I also noticed a lot of statistics on Wikipedia are misinterpreted.

>>57811881
>Here's another good one.
thye're also the only online/offline encyclopedia source that has arguments "for bestiality"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Arguments_for_bestiality

Controversial pages should just be forked under certain conditions and users locked out of a branch by vote.

Then you could see "Certain information about this topic gets people BUTTMAD. Would you like to see that info?"

>>57811867
>>57811910
>Thor missles
What is that?

I had an entertaining screenshot of a page where the statement "penis size varies a lot between species" had over 20 superscript references

File: Thor-Able_II_Transit_1A.jpg (87KB, 307x676px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 307x676px

>>57811974
I know a lot about space stuff, kiddo.

>>57811996
Please expand on that, never heard about it.

>>57811964
>muh levitican laws
It might surprise you to learn that bestiality just wasn't a big deal until the Semites came along. The Greeks thought you were a loser if you fucked a goat but it wasn't some crime against spooks.

>>57811887
>yfw sponsoring jimmy to go to the whores every day

>>57812049
>Jimbo Randroid the Objectivist literally has to beg for handouts to keep his website running
Kekadoodle doo

>>57812009
A rocket. Was originally built as a short range missile, later the basis for one of the core US launcher families including Delta II.

>>57812059
Sounds like that Free Republic jerk (I got banned from there for endorsing Ron Paul)

It's (((leftist))) propaganda.

I'd never even dream of editing an article on social sciences. Are you nuts?

>>57811964
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Arguments_for_bestiality

I have the weirdest boner.

>>57812159
It's all these faggots like OP are complaining about, so yeah, they truly are retarded.

>>57809892
paying to get shit re written by SJW faggots. No thanks.

>>57812190
Since when in this thread did I say I edited articles on feminism?

>>57812262
Yeah show us all your constructive edits on respectable, scientific pages. I bet they were full of respectable references, too.

>>57812090
That site hasn't been relevant since the WTC was standing.

>>57811810
back to >>>/r/eddit, faggot.

File: Colin-Farrell-Fedora-Hat-e1424567855205.jpg (157KB, 686x1024px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 686x1024px

>>57812027
>muh levitican laws
>It might surprise you to learn that bestiality just wasn't a big deal until the Semites came along. The Greeks thought you were a loser if you fucked a goat but it wasn't some crime against spooks.

>>57812305
Go fuck yourself virgin.

>>57812201

>my attempts to remove blatantly anti-gay POV from articles not only gets the attention of closely banded conservatards who watch said articles, but eventually results in my getting blocked from editing

>"SJWs"

Yeah, okay. Wikipedia is a clusterfuck of bias enforced by tightly knit groups of editors with a territorial mindset. It's not predominantly slanted in any one direction. I've had to deal with retards from all sides of the spectrum getting buttblasted over my edits.

>>57812354
have you come to realize that maybe you're the retard?

One time I edited an article about a murdered child and added some more details. It got reverted because "These edits, while true, may be upsetting to the victim's family."

Now that was bull and it also goes against Wikipedia's "We don't censor potentially shocking content" policy.

>>57812409
Then revert it back, citing that policy. If they still get buttmad, then seek a higher up.

>>57812409
Details? Was it a loli and did the guy do anything sexy with her?

>>57812440
That was a couple of years ago, dude.

>>57809892

Honestly, making the site totally ad free was just retarded. That money could have been used to turn wikipedia into something good and comprehensive. It's not a failure I'm glad it's around in it's current state, but it's not that great either. It's a very useful relic at this point.

>>57812467
So? The information hasn't ceased to be true, and the guy who reverted your edit is still retarded. Just add it back in.

>>57811996
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(1960–69)

I did most of the work on here which was a big undertaking. The list only had orbital Atlas launches and not suborbital ones, likely because there were so many that they were too lazy to include them.

But I completed it and put in every ICBM test and also failure causes if possible (I didn't have them for every launch).

>>57811598
>>57811683
Your English is pretty distinctive:
-comma after "but"
-"I was careful to not do things like..." as opposed to "I was careful not to do things like..."
-Beginning a sentence with "Also I didn't go out..." in place of "I also didn't...."

What were you banned for the first time? If you were parroting bullshit then it wouldn't be surprising that you got b&.

Conspiracy theorists are seriously easy to profile partly because the exasperatingly inane arguments they make are regrettably memorable but mainly because they tend to be fucking borderline retarded and give themselves away.

>Facts have become subjective. At wikipedia, we reject that idea
Sure, that's why you reject any edit to anything that isn't pandering to libcuck leftism

File: 1464952715442.png (55KB, 217x190px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 217x190px

>college trying to push wikipedia
>get enrolled in the project
>literally just tech help others because no one has half a brain to know how to edit wikipedia
>get free trip to berlin and montreal next year for wikipedia international events
wew

>>57812598
Are you a criminal minds agent?

>>57812409
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

>>57812623
Was this recent?

>>57812635
Yes. Wikipedia has been seeking educational institutes because they are desperate for valid recognition and more money.

>>57812635
didn't see the "next year" part kek

>>57812652
Last year I got trip to Mexico and this one to Italy though.

>>57811706
It doesn't matter, you need to source it, it's a tertiary source.

>>57812598
>What were you banned for the first time?

I told you why. I posted some factual mistakes, but I didn't want to admit they were wrong or fix them because one of the forum regulars was a surly asshole, so admitting I was wrong would therefore mean he won and he was so...dislikable that I didn't want to give him the satisfaction of victory. It wasn't specifically because of me, the guy I'm talking about is a humorless, robotic douche who's always "correcting" people's mistakes and acting like a know-it-all on NSF.

The problem with forums in general is that your worth is rated by how many posts you have. If you're up at 6000 posts like that guy was, you're considered god level and can get away with murder.

>>57809928
>2016
>not jew wise

>>57812673
I have no objection to putting sources, but I still say that's a bot patrolling those US history pages and my edits would have been reverted regardless.

>>57812696
Maybe, but only a bot doing the very simple check to see if you've sourced your edits.

>>57812696
Why do you say it's a bot?

>>57812687
This was on NASA Spaceflight Forums you say? They are notoriously elitist, but what's the user name of this poster?

>>57811398
>another dime

you actually gave them money in the past?

Years ago I got banned from an antique radio forum because I was an edgy teen and I wanted to pick a fight with baby boomers so I went to a site I knew had a lot of them. True story.

>>57812888
Wait, what!?

>>57812925
>several years ago
>read some anti-baby boomer greentext on /b/
>decide "Let's kick some ass. But first I need to find a cluster of boomers online."
>so I make an account on this antique radio forum which was full of 60 year olds and had an ugly as all fuck layout that hadn't been updated since 2001 or something
>I didn't really say my age other than a vague assertion that I was younger than them, but I was generally a douchebag and unhelpful (being that I didn't know a whole lot about old radios)
>they started to get gradually more annoyed
>I get a PM from the site admin saying I needed to make more constructive posts
>eventually I got banned because I made an offhanded Jew joke
>but I think they had it out for me and were just waiting for the first excuse to ban me

>>57812988
Bizarre.

>>57811841
I don't think it is real either. It's fucking stupid and there is no actual conversation about pedophilia in any of the "proof." It's just normal conversation that dumb /pol/cucks deluded themselves into thinking was a secret code because MUH HILRY

File: 1480735485.png (321KB, 904x878px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 904x878px

Feels good man

>>57813036
Pizzagate is fucking real. These people are sick motherfuckers. Washington DC is full of pedophiles.

If anyone doubts this, just ask yourself how a pizza joint owner got on GQs TOP 50 list of most powerful people in DC.

www.gq.com/gallery/50-most-powerful-people-in-washington-dc#slide=49

>>57813109
>circumstantial evidence
Wow it's fucking nothing.
You should talk about this with Terry. I'm sure he knows all about it.

>>57813109
perhaps by being a rich fucking cunt!?!?!!?!??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

This isn't locked. You're all free to edit it, /g/ents.

>>57813129
it's not just that. his instagram pics were full of pedo shit. his avatar on instagram was a statue of a pedo. there's sooooooo much that it's insane.

voat.
co/v/pizzagate

>>57812062
Nice, thanks for the info. Seems interesting, I'll probably read up on it a bit more.

File: installloli.png (183KB, 877x272px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 877x272px

Oh yes, Wikipedia. The spot for information. Indeed.

I thought they did this already...

>>57811943
I wasn't really into GG except to harvest delicious rage, but the edit war for the Wikipedia page was insane.
Doesn't help that 'authority trumps accuracy' is an actual policy.
Between NYT and the author of a book, it will always side with NYT.

>editing wikipedia articles
Only people with high level autism do that.

>>57809892
https://jarib.github.io/anon-history/
Wikipedia is openly edited by many governments, surveilance agencies and transnational corporations.
I would not trust any article that is not strictly tech or STEM-related.

>>57815344
And as this thread has proven, sometimes not even that.

>>57813109
Just ask Anthony Weiner, who may have also inadvertently put the nail in Hillary's coffin.

>>57811546
whats wrong with it

>>57811546
>>57818671
i mean, they already edited that

>>57812623
Berlin is a shithole though.

>>57811841
wheres the proofs?