Do you contribute to wikipedia?

Home Forums General & off-topic Do you contribute to wikipedia?

Viewing 34 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #48955
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Do u contribute to wikipedia?

    • #48956
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why would I? None of your contributions matter unless you’ve hit a certain standard/level.

      • #48994
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I’ve updated a few articles on various firearms over the years and so long as you provide a source, changes are rarely reverted unless you’re a thick cunt and manage to fuck up the article.

    • #48957
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’m not a chud, so I can’t

    • #48962
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >UNIRONICALLY BEING A chud
      >UNIRONICALLY CONTRIBUTING TO ONE OF THE MOST POZZED AND PARTISAN SITES ON THE WEB
      >UNIRONICALLY CONTRIBUTING TO A KEKED SITE THAT REWRITES HISTORY TO FIT AN AGENDA

      • #48964
        Anonymous
        Guest

        He lost, now go cry about "the plan" on parlor where you belong containment breecher

      • #48968
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >everything I dont like is partisan
        >everything different to how I think is pozzed

        HAHAHAHAHAHA
        >HAHAHAHAHAHA
        HAHAHAHAHAHA
        >HAHAHAHAHAHA
        HAHAHAHAHAHA
        >HAHAHAHAHAHA

        I would tell you to fuck off to your cage but scrotebrained people are so amusing

        • #48975
          Anonymous
          Guest

          He’s acting like a scrotebrain, but if you actually look into the talk pages on Wikipedia and all of the stupid arguments the editors get into you will realize he is not wrong. Comparing Wikipedia articles on historical figures from 10 years ago to the current articles is a bizarre experience.

          • #49003
            Anonymous
            Guest

            It depends which group takes over, their bullshit is spread. Croatian Wiki was taken over by nationalists who use it to promote their national myths.

        • #48977
          Anonymous
          Guest

          imagine being this naive

          • #48979
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Imagine posting in a thread about research and implying partisanship on the largest peer-reviewed encyclopedia without posting any examples of said partisanship

            • #48985
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Imagine being so unaware of the world that you don’t notice blatant distortions of reality when reading just about any article with any political content at all.

              • #48989
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Every time I find something I think is a little strange, I click that little number and read the source. If the source is a book, sometimes I read the book. Now link something that blatantly distorts reality

    • #48963
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://i.imgur.com/GrZMF9h.gif

      Wrote a paper, changed a few details and uploaded it as a source. It’s still there. No I won’t link it or give hints

    • #48965
      Anonymous
      Guest

      All the scientific and programming articles of wikipedia are fine since those fields are dominated by autists and wikipedia is the primary reference material for those types so they get checked daily, and we all know how autists behave if they find even the tiniest inaccuracy.

      All the other field are pozzed and filled with inaccuracies though. Sometimes even deliberately changed to suit chud illusions.

      • #48966
        Anonymous
        Guest

        [citation needed]
        Post link to article and sources

      • #49008
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This you can literally cite any source no matter how biased. They don’t allow using Fox News or Breitbart (a decision I agree with) but do allow HuffPost, SPLC, Vox, etc. Any historical or political article is pozzed to shit because of this.

    • #48967
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No, every edit I make is reversed within hours, even innocuous trivia about small towns with linked sources. I’ve given up

    • #48969
      Anonymous
      Guest

      LOL no. Gamergate opened my eyes

      • #48971
        Anonymous
        Guest

        ??? I skimmed through that autistic hell of a rabbit hole, and all I got out of it is that LULZirgins are illiterate and are all incels. Everything about how it started ended up being false and a lie:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

        • #48974
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Gamergate coverage was the most hilarious display of yellow "journalism" I’ve ever seen in my life.
          In 2015 the chatlogs went public and confirmed all the collusion that was suspected.

          • #48976
            Anonymous
            Guest

            > Called the "Zoe Post",[b] it was a lengthy, detailed account of their relationship and breakup[17] that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages.[11] The blog falsely implied that Quinn had slept with Nathan Grayson, a reporter for the website Kotaku, in exchange for favorable coverage of Quinn’s game Depression Quest.[18] Grayson never actually reviewed Quinn’s games, and Grayson’s only article mentioning them was published before their relationship began.[19][20][21] Gjoni later updated his blog post to acknowledge this,[20] saying that a typographical error was to blame.[5] Nonetheless, a link to the blog posted on LULZ, where many participants had previously been highly critical of Depression Quest, led to renewed attacks on Quinn.[22]

            Yeah, no, you’re all illiterate incels that can’t research for jack shit

            • #48983
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >he thinks gamergate is about Quinn rancid pussy stories
              >he thinks gaming journos aren’t giving privileged coverage to their "friends" shitty games (https://archive.is/m00nY#selection-2549.0-2549.558)
              >he thinks all the sjw clique reposting the same rant about "gamers" on multiple website in a 2 day interval was organic

              You will never be a woman

        • #48990
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >citing wikipedia

        • #48992
          Anonymous
          Guest

          All you need to know to understand gamergate is:
          >game journalists all give good reviews for shit games
          >people find out there’s a group mailing list with basically all game journalists in which they discuss what ratings they’re allowed to give games (nepotism and politics)
          >game media (and then real media) paints it as a sexist conspiracy against the dev of one of those shit games in an attempt to delegitimize and misrepresent the movement
          Anyone that watched in real time what the media did with this movement has become black/redpilled. And then ignorant scrotebrains like you come along and eat up the shit written for you by the same journalists.

          • #48993
            Anonymous
            Guest

            That’s not what happened. Gamergate was about the supposed collusion of female developers exchanging sexual favors or romance in exchange for favorable reviews. Collusion between "journalists" (complete hacks) is almost certainly real, nepotism no doubt exists, and their friends surely got good reviews, but that’s out of incompetency and that they’re not held to a higher standard by anything that can hold them accountable. The misogonyst bullshit that is gamergate though was complete incel conspiracy shit that rivalled Qanon in terms of seeing what they wanted to see.

            • #49000
              Anonymous
              Guest

              How does the koolaid taste?

            • #49018
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >that’s out of incompetency
              Nepotism, collusion, and borderline prostitution aren’t "incompetency".
              >and that they’re not held to a higher standard by anything that can hold them accountable.
              That was the point of Gamergate, to hold them accountable for the above. Turns out it’s easier to amplify victimhood than it is to be an ethical journalist.

              • #49020
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Nepotism refers to hack writers being hired because they’re good friends with someone that works there. Collusion means a hack writter calls another writer and asks "what should I rate this game? 9? Ok cool". That’s all incompetence. Prostitution is gamergate conspiracy shit.

                • #49022
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Collusion means a hack writter calls another writer and asks "what should I rate this game?
                  No, collusion is when reviewers are friends with the MAKER OF THE GAME. I say borderline prostitution because some of these were friends with benefits.

                  • #49024
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Like who? Not Zoe, that’s for sure

                    • #49025
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Certainly Zoe, that’s the freaking point. There were hardly any attempts to deny it, only brick walls of censorship across the internet.

          • #48995
            Anonymous
            Guest

            What actually happened:
            >/poo/ astroturfs in every GG thread
            >scrotebrained kids went along with it out of petty anti-PC contrarianism
            >game "journalists" highlight /poo/ autism and use it to portray themselves as being persecuted

            • #48997
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Protip: If the journalists writing the articles about being persecuted are being doxed, receiving death and rape threats, and report stalkers for years after writing articles, that’s not a portrayal. Incels are just that psychotic

              • #48999
                Anonymous
                Guest

                There is zero evidence this ever happened. Anita faked her own death threats and there was never a police report filed, which goes against her claims.

                • #49002
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  no reports filed, no threats

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian#Harassment
                  >This coincided with the ongoing harassment of Zoë Quinn as part of the Gamergate controversy. The increased volume and specificity of the harassment (including death threats) prompted Sarkeesian to leave her home.
                  > San Francisco Police confirmed that they had passed the case file to the FBI for investigation.

                  ???

                  • #49004
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >citing wikipedia
                    ARE YOU EVEN READING THE freaking THREAD, STUPID?!

                    • #49005
                      Anonymous
                      Guest
                      • #49009
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >citing Polygon
                        >even linking it
                        Do you even understand whats being talked itt?
                        They faked and manipulated all those articles, everything, quoting their friends and whoever was in their payroll to speak well of them so the wikipedia articles always put them in good light.

                        This is like saying Hitler did nothing wrong and quoted its by Joseph Goebbels

                      • #49014
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #49016
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Verge
                        You never learn do you?

                      • #49021
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No one else gives a shit about gamergate. You can read the primary source yourself, straight from the glowie horse’s mouth:
                        https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate

                      • #49023
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        i am, all it says and even attaches an article written by one of the implicated in the fiasco, is "People are freaking crazy for videogames"

                      • #49048
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Show an actual police report. They are public records so it should be easy to do and yet in all of these years with all of the thousands of claimed death threats, not a single police report has been shown. Nothing but circular references to other references, none of which end with an actual police report. There should be thousands of these public records and yet no one has been able to produce even one of them. Why is that?

                      • #49017
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Another suspect was interviewed around San Jose, California in late 2015. According to the report, he “considered himself to be a ‘tech guy.’” who “often plays video games.” He was “aware about Gamergate from reading about it on Google News” and recalled posting comments on LULZ mocking someone (likely also Wu) who he “considered a professional victim who exaggerated the threats.” He then “admitted to sending [a] threatening email” that he admitted “looked really bad.” Although details about it are redacted, the report goes on to say that he “does not own a shotgun,” which hints at its contents.

                        > She’s exaggerating! She’s not getting any death threads
                        > …the report goes on to say that he “does not own a shotgun,” which hints at its contents.

                        lol

                      • #49015
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        This is what any article about a conservative figure reads like today:

                        <person’s name> is <white supremacist | far right | nazi | something else bad> (source: <link to some opinion piece in some radical leftist rag>).

                        Wikipedia is complete shit now

              • #49001
                Anonymous
                Guest

                no reports filed, no threats

          • #49067
            Anonymous
            Guest

            thanks, i’m a pretty perceptive guy. not like i havent noticed things like these already.

        • #49050
          Anonymous
          Guest
    • #48970
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I don’t work for free.

    • #48972
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I throw them a $20 every year when jimmy asks because I use it a bunch and they are about the last website that hasn’t submitted to banner ads and shit.

      • #49070
        Anonymous
        Guest

        How much Jimmy needs money to keep his website up?

    • #48973
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I did for a while and perhaps, regarding mathematical stuff, you may have even read what i wrote. I stopped though, since those Nazimoderators like to delete everything that hasn’t been written by themselves.. Not worth my time

    • #48980
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why should I? Wikipedia is home to some of the biggest gatekeeping scrotes in existence.

      • #48981
        Anonymous
        Guest

        > They won’t let me post memes and Qanon shit
        > freaking gatekeepers

    • #48982
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I had to for a college course. It was 30% of the grade. Some resident autist admin fixed all my spelling mistakes, but the article is still there.

      • #49045
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I used to contribute, got to about 20k edits mostly from antivandalism. I am glad I am free from that shit.

        Woke af admin doing your work for you. Notable articles are rarely deleted anyways, I bet the one I started is still there.

    • #48991
      Anonymous
      Guest

      theres so many better wikis to contribute to if i ever did so

      • #48998
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Like what? Every other wiki has like 3 articles and no depth at all if you want to read further.

        Name a decent wiki for computer science.

        • #49011
          Anonymous
          Guest

          ur mom

    • #48996
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Sometimes on Wikibooks

    • #49012
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What’s a good alternative to wikipedia?

    • #49013
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Sometimes. I’m not an expert in much, but whenever verified news comes out I often edit an article to reflect it.

    • #49019
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I contributed to one of the Halo pages.

    • #49027
      RESOBABE
      Guest

      I cannot. My worldview isn’t (((Manhattan))) centered enough.

      I tried hard to have a page for Termux, but the garden gnomes @ garden gnomepedia do not want it to exist.

    • #49028
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’m not gnomish so I’m not allowed to

    • #49029
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I don’t know jack about Gamergate but the lowball attacks weakened whatever cause their supporters were fighting for. They could have dropped the toxicity and yet still fought for ethical journalism, for whatever niche there is. Though frankly, people shouldn’t be getting worked up over consumer culture at all.

      • #49030
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >They could have dropped the toxicity and yet still fought for ethical journalism
        It doesn’t matter what you did, if you tried to talk about Zoe Quinn negatively in any way, you were brushed under the rug all the same.

        • #49031
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Most of the criticisms from what I read didn’t make sense. The ones that were valid however seen overreached which nullified the entire argument and lead everyone to think it was just a case of broken clock being right for once. Honestly, she’s just radioactive at this point and pigeonholed herself to a single issue, with all the criticisms being the same stuff everyone has already heard a million times before. No one is brushing anyone aside, it’s just that there’s nothing to talk about there anymore.

          • #49032
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >No one is brushing anyone aside
            I’m talking about at the time. The amount of videos, articles, and threads that were nuked for talking about Quinn were legion.

            • #49033
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Because it was all bullshit

              • #49034
                Anonymous
                Guest

                You will be never a woman. Deleting posts and articles isn’t a rebuttal.

                • #49036
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Obsessed. Making shit up and passing off second and third hearsay of false rumors and fake timelines while calling for cancelling, denouncing, and sometimes violence doesn’t count as journalism incel. Cope and seethe

                  • #49040
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Once again, your side rebutted nothing, merely stated the opposition was harassing and shut everything down. There are only two genders.

    • #49035
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Left wing bias
      Why even bother

    • #49037
      Anonymous
      Guest

      English wikipedia is garden gnomeed to shit, just look at the edit history of pages like Cultural Marxism.

    • #49038
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >do you work for free ?
      i certainly don’t

    • #49046
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      There’s an obvious lefty bias on Wikipedia, trannies like the identity/ego boost of contributing to wikipedia (hence the fact they’re trannies). Put two and two together you mindless fuck.

      • #49051
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >There’s an obvious lefty bias on Wikipedia
        Or maybe you’ve gone a bit far right and have lost sight of where the middle of the road is (relative to average global political opinion, not just those of your friends and your pastor). Sticking to verifiable facts (i.e., get a good citation) is a good way to avoid spouting stupid crazy bullshit.
        Yes, this isn’t going to be very palatable if you’ve been bingeing on stupid parochial extremist turdwaffles in recent years. Boo freaking hoo.

        • #49054
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Who the fuck cares what ‘global opinion’ is, the truth isn’t defined by citing "reliable sources" of buzzfeed-tier media outlets that are completely one-sided. Wikipedia has a notorious bias on anything political that is brought about by having a small clique of extremely vocal editors that have chased everyone else off the site 10+ years ago, see

          […]
          ?

          .

          i’ve created entries for hundreds of fake villages in eastern europe and nobody has caught on

          kek

        • #49055
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >verifiable facts
          No, you have to stick to the implicit neoliberal party line, or your edits are reversed. All you have to do is go on the talk page to get an idea of how much a topic is being actively censored by paid shills.

    • #49047
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I am not going to edit it but I will donate $10 when I have the money

    • #49052
      Anonymous
      Guest

      i’ve created entries for hundreds of fake villages in eastern europe and nobody has caught on

      • #49063
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Woke af, fuck wikipropagandia

    • #49053
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No.
      I’m not doing unpaid high-effort posts anywhere.
      What a bunch of suckers.

    • #49056
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The first and last time I tried I got called a meatpuppet with no primary source. Apparently something’s *factual* existence with actual proof isn’t good enough for Wikipedia editors. Someone else that is """reputable""" has to write a news article about it for it to exist which is beyond stupid.

      Fuck HamPastrami.

    • #49057
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >
      why would I work for free?

    • #49060
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Yeah, created a page about a relatively obscure, recently deceased, but very key person in a certain industry back in april. His position backed with sources, relations and key contributions to dozens of respected figures’ work, provably making their rise to fame possible in the first place.
      What ensued was a several months-long battle with some clueless wikipedia mod that wanted to delete the page because the person wasn’t "proven to be Wiki-significant", because said mod has no idea about the production process in that industry, and mentions on several other years-old pages don’t mean anything to him. I had to argue semantics of wikipedia’s scrotebrained "personality significance categories" with the guy in page comments for several weeks until he got tired of it and stopped responding, at which point it took another month and a half for another dude to look at the page and approve it in late august.

      Wikipedia reminded me of 00’s web forum mod power trips, in a bad way. Holy fuck was it frustrating.

      • #49061
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Wikipedia reminded me of 00’s web forum mod power trips, in a bad way. Holy fuck was it frustrating.
        yup. that’s my experience too. If they *personally* don’t believe you, then your shit is not acceptable to them because their rules allow them to deny first and ask questions later. It’s a hellhole — i don’t use wikipedia anymore unless I want to know something extremely mundane like when a video game was released in japan and the US, it’s the only place that has it in a consistent format aside from gamefaqs which might be missing info.

        • #49064
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >it’s the only place that has it in a consistent format aside from gamefaqs which might be missing info.
          This is one of literally like 3 acceptable uses for wikipedia. Outside of that it’s a propaganda outlet moderated by either powertripping scrotes or literal garden gnomes (see

          […]
          ?

          ) masquerading as a "reliable source". Kinda like media corporations. Or tech corporations. Private interests that have managed to convince a disturbing portion of the population that they aren’t in fact unreliable, biased, or outright dishonest sources of, well, any information at all.

          The great thing though is that even reddit-tier normies are realizing how much and how often corporations (including wikipedia) lie. There’s a reason censorship has been ramping up like freaking crazy this year – it’s not because billionaires are tightening their grip. It’s because they’re losing it.

          • #49065
            Anonymous
            Guest

            pretty disgusting stuff when there’s councils that determine what should or shouldnt be censored. information wants to be free, if it has a reliable source it should be listed.

            • #49066
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >information wants to be free
              That’s why laws exist, anon. Information is dangerous.

    • #49073
      Anonymous
      Guest

      This thread reeks of ax wound.

    • #49074
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Realistically why the fuck would you? You could create a brilliant piece, only to have it reversed by some worthless admin who likely has pink hair.

      See what I mean here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

    • #49075
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What do you mean contribute?
      You mean give them money? Fuck no.
      You mean edit or create entries? A few times but I learned that there are weirdos out there that spend their days protecting obscure freaking Wikipedia pages like vultures. If you change anything and they aren’t pleased it’s reset, they’re all drama queens, and lord over each other in the little forum they have in the site.

      • #49076
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Wikipedia is dying because they do nothing against this cancerous behavior.

        • #49079
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It’s been that way for years to the point that some of the "contributors" become notorious in their circles. They then bleed over into sites like Wikia(nka Fandom).
          Same freaking weidos doing the same shit but now in a more niche environment.

    • #49080
      Anonymous
      Guest

      only when my autism kicks in and i notice something super wrong that isn’t just funny vandalism

Viewing 34 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id