Wikipedia is fucked up

>>62473215
Well post the shit

>>62473215
happened earlier today, too

seems like that guy is murderer

Who cares

Someone edited a template. Nothing to see here.

>>62473215
I literally do not care, wtf is wrong with wikipedia - what's the alternative? Pirate most recent / reputable encyclopedia / dictionary for anything and use that instead?

>>62473377
You can just grab a copy of Wikipedia (sans media) from their site. It's like. 10 GiB torrent.

wikipedia is such fucking trash. they don't document anything interesting, just the bare minimum

>>62473215
Some turbo autist pizzagate fag wrote a bot that edits wikipedia articles, nothing to see here.

File: 1485039396366.jpg (27KB, 960x506px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 960x506px

>>62473550
It's not only that, but the editors are unreliable and are a bunch of activist homosexuals. Just because they "cite" something doesn't make it okay, because an encyclopedia entry requires you to consider all sides and to write a balanced and timeless article. I grew up with buying actual bookshelves of encyclopedias and kids these days are missing out on quality content thinking Wikipedia is reliable and the truth.

>>62473597
You can't shoot bullets in space

File: 1498181532609.png (507KB, 1914x988px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1914x988px

>>62473215
>>>/pol/141844628

>>62473597
>Reading articles about some political issues where peoples opinions matter
kys polcuck

>>62473628
Yes you can. Gunpowder contains both fuel and oxidizer, much like solid rocket fuel. Recoil could send you directions you don't want to go, however.

File: wiki.png (492KB, 1896x935px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1896x935px

It looks normal here.

>>62473673
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Something_strange

>>62473550
Not to mention they delete so much average content instead of improving it. Used to edit wikipedia but if you're writing about a fringe topic you can kiss your articles goodbye

Basically its some faggot on twitter that will never deliver. Maybe he tried to buy some office space and was denied so he wants to ruin this guy's life.

>evidence that suggests
shouldnt evidence PROOF something

Every part of wikipedia is shit. Their culture is cancer and discourages new people. The number of editors is declining over the last decade, even as the internet and the number of wikipedia users grows. Surveys show actual experts have been fleeing the site. They let these so called "deletionists" run wild and delete everything they can get away with, purging entire sections of the site.

The organization itself is shit. They desperately beg for donations, but they can't manage the money they have.

https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism

>>62475372
Any good online alternatives?

>>62476545
not for paranoid delusional faggots, no.

>>62476744
Damn, too bad.

>>62475203
not really. No evidence can prove anything. A proof only exist in logic and mathematics. In science and everything that is not logic or mathematics then you can only provide evidence that suggest. The term "proving" in all other cases than mathematics or logical proofs are wrongly used and are just used as a synonym for "evidence that suggest".

No amount of evidence can prove anything. Proofs in mathematics and logic only are proofs because they show how some ideas either fail or correspond to certain axioms. It's a completely different kind of evidence.

A criminal case can not be proven. A criminal might be caught bloody with a knife in his hands, he might admit to killing someone, there might be several wittnesses and even a camera showing him seemingly stabbing someone, but that does not prove anything. There might be scenarios where the person is innocent.

>>62473215
If you don't have a script blocker, you probably have a virus now.