Footboy posted:

Wikipedia, where a professional in his field can't post uncited "original research" on a topic, but any sperglord can make a blog post that is absolutely full of poo poo and then cite it in a relevant article.

JawnV6 posted:

what's the thing where you compare word counts of articles

because 'interstate 70 in colorado' has twice the content as the trail of tears

Footboy posted:

People should get banned for citing any blog post.

quote:

The list of fictional antiheroes article used to be even worse than its current iteration, because someone would arbitrarily decide that a character fit their misconceived definition of "antihero", run a Google search for any internet page where someone else mistakenly referred to a character as an antihero, then cite it. Even in its current state, the "reference" section has a lot of domain-level links and 404s.

quote:

Wikipedians don't "get" what constitutes a reliable source.

Nevergirls posted:

when did this start happening?

Gentle Autist posted:

could it be because it is animated?? just a thought

Nevergirls posted:

does this mean by definition literally anybody can get press credentials

unixbeard posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_cities_by_number_of_professional_sports_franchises

it seems to be listed by alphabetical order

got dat wmd posted:

reminder that there was a 2 sentence article about a south african restaurant that failed all of wikipedia's guidelines and was nominated for deletion like 20 times but it was kept because jimbo said it was hisfavourite restaurant in south africa. i wish i could remember then ame

Luigi Thirty posted:

he literally can't, they took his admin abilities away due to "violating community consensus" for deleting some anime pedo poo poo

if I remember Wikipedia bureaucracy correctly the proper way to stop him is to get a Request for Comment with an administrator which is non-binding and takes months, then if that fails it goes to the Arbitration Committee which is binding and also takes months to come up with a ruling.

Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

Nevergirls posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9gag

the talk page has 19 sections and the actual article has two sentences exactly.

JustFrakkingDoIt posted:

am still angry that some shitbird permadeleted that mermaid conundrum. poo poo was informative and interesting

axolotl farmer posted:

the wikipedia article for this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

is 5525 words.

the article about Seoul is 5802 words

Dead Man Posting posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Kox

mods namechange posted:

goddamn jimmy wales, what the gently caress man

Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

archive 8 is literally tens of thousands of words about the title
they proposed creating an article titled "Grammatical and orthographical interpretations of the movie title Star Trek Into Darkness"

Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:

rest of series plz

RZApublican posted:

so this is a thing on wikipedia now



clicking the image redirects you to the current members of the united states house of representatives page

haveblue posted:

just checked now, having never visited the samizdat page before ever in my life, and it's there

RZApublican posted:

I wanna say the font change has something to do with libreoffice changing their default font to the awful liberation serif font recently, but it's probably just wikipedia taking their retarded image license guidelines to the logical conclusion