Why Wikipedia Sucks...

[FixedBusiness 407]

Honestly had no idea those existed, feel free to merge.

Also just realised the Doug Walker page was merged to Nostalgia Critic

[Bibliogryphon 8,652]

1 hour ago, Cat O'Falk said:

We already have three Wikipedia threads, do we really need a fourth?

Can't we just have one with the title All Things Relating to Wikipedia?

 

People Who Are Dead According To Wikipedia

Why Wikipedia Sucks

Another Wikipedia error

I think the people who are dead page stands alone but the other three could merge.

[Sir Creep 7,013]

Well this one was created June of 2005.  Unless another pre-dated this one, I don't care how popular another thread may have become, the earliest title should win the day.  Yes, the 'Dead According To' is a unique entity agreed.

[harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,453]

Wikipedia is 21 today. Only a couple of years older than this very site, which naturally they still refuse to acknowledge.

 

 

(Edit: Sorry, I mean 20 - Wikipedia misinformed me)

[gcreptile 10,228]

1 hour ago, harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy said:

Wikipedia is 20 today. Only a couple of years older than this very site, which naturally they still refuse to acknowledge.

 

Maybe it's time we edit this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_pool

 

I mean, the rotten deadpool isn't the biggest anymore. If it ever was.

[Grim Up North 3,565]

38 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

 

Maybe it's time we edit this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_pool

 

I mean, the rotten deadpool isn't the biggest anymore. If it ever was.

 

What is the biggest?

[Spade_Cooley 9,022]

DDP is the most prestigious.

[gcreptile 10,228]

2 hours ago, Grim Up North said:

 

What is the biggest?

I ignore the Doug Stanhope pool, so I can't comment on that.

But I would be surprised if it wasn't the DDP - at least on the internet. I'm sure, the Bilderberg Group has their own pool.

 

[Toast 14,839]

I've just seen this on a Wikipedia entry:

 

"This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources."

 

I mean, whaaat?  Surely primary sources are the gold standard. 

[msc 17,761]

8 hours ago, Toast said:

I've just seen this on a Wikipedia entry:

 

"This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources."

  

I mean, whaaat?  Surely primary sources are the gold standard. 

 

The primary source is usually seen as biased by Wiki editors. I've known folk with wildly inaccurate information on Wiki who have pointed this out. For example, someone's birth date and marriage date were off by years. They mentioned this, got told to supply proof. They said they could provide copies of the birth certificate, got told that was "original research" to boot and not reliable information, but a random website that cobbled crap information off a fanzine 30 years ago (made up) was reliable and stuck on Wiki for years instead. The more I learn of Wiki editors, the less a mystery it appears that the internet was adamant that Andre Maranne died in 1992, despite the fact that he was still replying to fanmail and any one of those online editors could have knocked on his door and had a cup of tea in the near 30 years between that date and his actual death!

 

In short, Wiki editors are anal fuckwits. 

[arghton 6,121]

Why do Wikipedia editors keep resurrecting Emmanuel Bodjollé? How does Wikipedia usually deal with people who aren't over 100 or 110 yet, but have completely disappeared and are probably long, long dead? I hope they'll one day soon find his bones in some river just so that they can finally mark him dead.

 

And I've just remembered this one: 

 

US teenager wrote huge slice (27000 entries) of Scots wiki.  

 

[arghton 6,121]

I've found Wikipedia's largest flaw. Baghdad Bob/Comical Ali/Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf isn't listed here.