Is wikipedia dying?

Is wikipedia dying?

What should it do to cure its cancer?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(computer_programming)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_marxism
thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/art-feminism-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-records
breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/16/feminists-at-oberlin-bucknell-temple-host-wikipedia-edit-a-thon/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dY1Cgg8NV64C
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dead_white_men
twitter.com/AnonBabble

it got hijacked by left wing activists so now no one views it as credible

Give Big Jimbo $20

Moderate to minimum standards of specific EU / US natonal laws.

Introduce tagged "importance" filters to allow hiding away very detailed descriptions that are only relevant for people who follow the details of national / local topics or even readers of a certain publication.

You could then just enable all topic details that likely are only relevant to people from Los Angeles and who read reddit because they never really made it out of information sources local to these places, and it wouldn't have to be moderated out of WP entirely.

>What should it do to cure its cancer?
Ask for even more donations.

>Conservapedia
>credible

It never was a credible or authorative source of infornation.

It turned into kike propaganda

only liberals beg for money

it turned into a project of how much content can they delete by referring to WP:**-sections than it is a project of presenting human knowledge

...

its not meant to be authoritative, it was meant to provide objective information and sources. but now it doesnt even do that, it censors actual facts and sources that the admins dislike. no one believes theyre credible administrators of an online encyclopedia any longer, just like no one believes snopes is a fact checking site anymore either.

Cuckservatives and shitlibs are the same thing you homo.

Lots of different groups using to to push a verity of political agendas

Wikipedia is dead. Too many agenda-driven e-gangs a.k.a "taskforces".

Just let it die

ayy the goalpost

You really dont know how use shillpedia?
> tip: You dont fucking use the article posted on the shitsite

It stopped being even an untrustworthy encyclopedia and is now just another vector of far left misinformation.

Still better than far right misinformation.

Sure, if only there was such a thing as the "far right"

>Same thing
>Better
Do you even understand how shit works?
Macfags can at-least say "I prefer the operating system"

>due to its political slant, this set of false information is better than that set of false information
Interesting.

If liberal Universities give credits to students for editing in feminism in articles and if they allow literal open commies to edit how can anyone view it as credible on any topics that are even tangentely political or social.

Wikipedia can't be fixed, it's broken and it's been for many years.

Think about this, who has time to spend all day every day editing Wikipedia articles so they can become an admin there? Those who for various reasons have it as their job, that's who.

I'm guessing OP just realized that it's a simply a propaganda tool and therefore think's it can be fixed. It can't.

The real fix is to setup your own website(s) and use other websites.

>Is wikipedia dying?

For what I use it for, wikipedia is just fine -- in fact, it's often my first and often only resource.

Here's an example of the kind of articles I've looked at over the past few days. Every one of them is a fine, informative article for me:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(computer_programming)

Not much is wrong with it. Unless you search for politically sensitive material, but who gets their news from wikipedia?

Did the MOSFET page change to further leftist propaganda? No.

>T-these are all leftist propaganda!
t. you

NO ONE TOUCHES MY ARTICLE IT'S MINE FUCKING NORMIES STOP EDITING MY ARTICLE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Who cares about Wikipedia? I mean, it doesn't accept the cherrypicked charts I took from Sup Forums, and debunks with arguments all the shitty studies we, at Sup Forums, use to justify our bigotry.

Wikipedia is obviously fake news controlled by super Jews because it doesn't align with my personal, bullshit, opinions. I get all my news from /r/thedonald anyway.

Reality has a left wing bias

>propaganda tool
Propaganda of what exactly?

THE JEWS. You can only trust Metapedia.

>agenda-driven
The fuck does this even mean?

Do they have a literal jews face slide in on a half screen banner to beg for donations?

>Propaganda of what exactly?
Class D amplifier propaganda.

Its only bad on the humanities.

>What should it do to cure its cancer?

Nuke it from orbit. Restart it in urbit.

Tell that to David Reimer's grave

Yeah that's exactly what I was thinking about.
That and the article about Metaheuristic I was reading.

lel, btfo

Now check the articles on Gamergate or Cultural Marxism

Does conservapedia have anywhere near the same reach and daily users as wikipedia?

>Gamergate
Was a serious failing for wikipedia.
>Cultural Marxism
Doesn't real.

For any politically related topic, or sociology, or even controversial-but-historical items, the articles are practically tripe. In any article where you can paint a certain group or people as good/bad, or where someone can benefit from an article being slanted in a particular way, the article becomes a battleground. Whoever has more patience, or has a bigger number of partners in their e-mob a.k.a taskforce, wins. Their viewpoint gets to the forefront, and the loser gets to be relegated to a couple of footnotes.

conservapedia is where liberals from wikipedia larp as conservatives and a few confused boomers who believe its legit

Information wants to be free.

Checkmate Jimmy.

The article on Gamergate is 100% accurate.

If we had known the ultimate truth we wouldn't need an encyclopedia. It is perfectly normal to have discussions during editing.

Give an example and let's go over that.

>For what I use it for, wikipedia is just fine -- in fact, it's often my first and often only resource.

Well that is the thing really: as long as it is your "first and often only resource" it will appear "just fine", to put it in your very own words.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_marxism

It's dying because shit like pic related.

thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/art-feminism-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-records

breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/16/feminists-at-oberlin-bucknell-temple-host-wikipedia-edit-a-thon/

Thanks for the explanation. Even though I kinda see that as normal.
That's also why we have elections. The majority opinion is going to win.

>'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to aconspiracy theorywhich sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroyWestern society.

Literally what's wrong with that? It's literally what Sup Forums says all the time

Wtf is cultural "marxism" even? Doesn't the clueless right realize that the cultural revolution has been driven by capitalism? Abortion and sex change surgeries are all about money. If anything, it should be called "cultural capitalism".

how it became to be. the lefties basically strong armed their views into getting it deleted and merged. and conspiracy has a huge negative connotation for something that is based on history.

>cultural marxism

searching that brings up the right page

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

why does the clueless left not realize seizing the means of production (labor) and capitalism which is seizing money which is based on labor is the same shit. it's just two groups vying for power with different ideologies

Humanities have always been a pointless shitflinging contest, both right and left are mad that there is no hegemony (and before you underaged Sup Forumstards complain, there is a leftist bias but it's a matter of more human workforce being devoted to it).

What really matter is that hard sciences are fine, facts are as ok as possible and as many subjects are added to it as humanly possible, the point of enciclopedias is providing a surface glance at subjects but making sure every subject is compiled into a single source, you are supposed to build of off it, not take it as a final source.

I swear, discovering populism has made you yuropoors and murrifats even .ore retarded than usual, have fun with that.

Basing your fantasy in history doesn't mean anything.

Populism is dead in europe though didn't you hear?

I guess that's why left wing ideology is the greatest creator of inequality and death then?

I just see it as distributing resources evenly as needed, doing away with mindless consumerism and waste of resources and advertising and the whole planned obsolence, use-and-dispose mindset

combined with automating menial jobs that nobody really needs to do, leaving a few tasks left that are still hard to automate, that people passionate for it can do, be it being doctors, doing research, or maintaining stuff. There are already tons of nonprofit organizations so there are people like that.

not the 60-80s meme communism where everyone is supposed to do hard labour and live off potatoes only

there has never before been this possibility of not needing to work because of previous technological constraints

of course jews/americans are never going to allow anything like that to happen

For now, no one there is really prepared to deal with populism, it's shitposting in politics form.

They'll have fun once nationalism kicks in and civil liberties become restricted.

>If we had known the ultimate truth we wouldn't need an encyclopedia

The obvious, correct treatment with disagreements is to present all of them and let the reader make up his own mind, not to wage a jihad.

"Nullius in verba". That's the golden standard for science and truth. Now we have political correctness and no-platforming.

the oligarchs aren't going to let you eat tendies and jack off to anime for free they will squash you with their robotic army if you protest their power grab. if communism did actually work it would be the quickest way to end humanity. It comes down to this. You either believe or do not that a utopia is possible and beneficial or you do not that is the basis of communism.

>Populism is dead in europe though didn't you hear?

This is just the antebellum.The economy is going nowhere and immigration is only going to get worse.

Left wing is all authoritarian communist countries, alright. The right wing is all Nazis then.

isn't it odd how shit like COINTELPRO gets through the cracks but the george soros page has nothing about blm, not even on the talk page or it's archives?
also
>yfw marxists can't into memeing or economics
no wonder the neocons are winning

t. alt cuck

But user, not wanting unlimited sand monkey immigration is extremely far right. Hitler didn't want sand monkeys either. You don't want to be literally Hitler, do you?

All ideologies are retarded, the whole point of a true republic is making sure no one retard stays in power long enough to fuck it up badly.

>The right wing is all Nazis then.

The nazis were a mixture of rightist zombies with socialist memes.

The actual right wing were the nobles, the KANGS and shit from the ancien régime. Throne and altar. The organic state. All that jazz. WW1 destroyed them all.

>Thinking Sup Forums made up Cultural Marxism
>Believing it's a conspiracy theory
>Falling for the very same manipulation that we are literally discussing right now

Prove it from first principles.

Sup Forums is on the political radar now. Infiltration and subversion. Rules for radicals. All by the book. And a lot of useful idiots that even do it for free.

It works, because leftists have thermodynamics by their side. To destroy, to engender chaos, is always easier than creating, to order. Civilization is a eternal fight against entropy.

It already covers most general info

Specific info is for other wikis

Fuck off back to /x/.

>Le all sides are the same meme
I bet you watch South Park too

Since alt-right hypocrites have invaded Sup Forums

kek

>"Nullius in verba". That's the golden standard for science and truth.
That's a highminded ideal that is literally impossible to make real.

Most of science is dependent on the verbum, i.e. stuff other people wrote that you have to trust in to a certain extent. Only in new fields a single scientist could learn the entire body of knowledge, but even they would be dependent on knowledge of related fields, and it would only be a matter of time for complexity to rise to such an extent that you have to rely on the word of other people.

>The obvious, correct treatment with disagreements is to present all of them and let the reader make up his own mind, not to wage a jihad.
You can have that in the discussion page, but the actual article needs to be in a readable format, which prevents people from putting 400 screens worth of flat earth theory on a page about heliocentrism.

1. Search "Cultural Marxism" on Google Scholar

2. Read left wing journals promoting it decades before Sup Forums was even created.

Wow, that was hard. Here, I'll even save you a search:

books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dY1Cgg8NV64C

I am old enough and have seen enough to know that there is no right solution and anyone that thinks so needs some growing up to do, it does make sense that Sup Forums has turned to politics, all the underaged ban are getting into college years now and are full of stupid ideologies. Have fun having your dreams shattered but not being able to do nothung because you voted an authoritarian into power.

Who /radical center/ here?

>tfw people attack neoliberalism

>the donald
Full of neoconservatives, leftists by another name

Maybe the thing he noticed is that places with little moderation tend to attract the whiny babbies from the places with moderation.

Can't you just read the talk page and history on pages that would engender more controversial bias?
If I'm reading about something more neutrel it seems fine.

Search for "Earth".
You'll find plenty of papers on it.
This means the Earth is flat.

conservatards litter that shit with ads and never actually become relevant to begin with

By your logic Trump is left

He's a Nazi, what isn't left by his logic?

>That's a highminded ideal that is literally impossible to make real.

Like every model and theory in science, ideals are to be approximated as humanly possible, to strive for them, not to throw the to the trash because ideology.

>You can have that in the discussion page, but the actual article needs to be in a readable format, which prevents people from putting 400 screens worth of flat earth theory on a page about heliocentrism.

You put a link to the flat earth theory article, then.

>Give an example and let's go over that
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon

Here is a standard example. A long time ago, this topic was about classics of Western art, items that were powerful and influential enough to have influenced Western culture, whether they be books, poems, paintings or sculptures.

You can see evidence that this was once a great article, every other paragraph. But somehow, sandwiched between these good paragraphs is a lot of unrelated material about how Western canon is biased to favour the works of European men, how this needs feminism/minorities/Marxism.

You wonder: What exactly does Western canon have to do with Marxism? Western canon typically relies on art from the 17th century and prior, so why is feminism in there? How are we getting alternating paragraphs about Western canon and paragraphs of unrelated sociopolitics?

You see, there was another article called "Dead White Men":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dead_white_men

THAT article criticizes Western art for being the work of white men. Some extreme retard decided that "dead white men" should be merged with "Western canon". Why? I do not know, but here we are.

The article is now rubbish. You can no longer read about Western canon on Wikipedia, without also reading about unrelated feminism and Marxism.

Now head over to any article about any ongoing conflict, especially controversial sociopolitical conflicts, and enjoy the mess.

>Like every model and theory in science, ideals are to be approximated as humanly possible, to strive for them, not to throw the to the trash because ideology.
People disagree on how to do that. Doesn't mean that they don't value that ideal.

>You put a link to the flat earth theory article, then.
Yeah. In the discussion page, at most.

I proved that Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory made up by Sup Forums. I don't know what your autistic rambling is supposed to be about.

mate, TVP and other start trek type communism ideas are a joke.

The Earth isn't a conspiracy theory either. Therefore it's flat, and anything you hear to the contrary is a conspiracy.

>feminists and sjws are ruining everything

and the sky is blue.

gr8 b8 m8
surely no one is stupid enough to actually belive this as true

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon
Can you pinpoint exact portions for me please?

Because,
- It is obvious that the debate section would cover these.
- It is obvious that 20th century would have a feminism section.
- It is obvious that there would be a women in western art section.

I don't understand which particular section breaks the flow of the article.