Post: #1

Gents,

I have been mulling over this one on and off for a long time.

I have lost count of the number of SJWs or just "normal" leftists whose Wikipedia entries feature nothing but glowing praise (masquerading as encyclopedia-style neutral writing). Clearly the paragraphs have been written by them, their staff or obsessed fans.

Many of them do not feature news stories or other tidbits that paint them in a very unflattering light.

If you know some of these people, I advise you to make some strategic but fair reasonably worded edits to their pages.

A good example is obese whale-model Tess Holiday (formerly Munster):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tess_Holliday

She has hundreds of customers she left in the lurch (read: scammed) and not one mentioning even the allegations on her Wikipedia page. Just frothing worship at how she has basically emancipated fellow walking diabetes factories from that nagging sense they should lose about 500 pounds.

Some of you may have read my takes on her already:

http://www.returnofkings.com/75476/is-ob...-charities
http://www.returnofkings.com/68548/obese...be-a-model

It's preferable to link to actual news stories, not Tumblr and Facebook groups (like with Holliday's scammed customers). Whatever the case, these sorts of balancing inclusions on Wikipedia I'm talking about, which just relay information, rather than taking a side, is a decent way to have the uninitiated view SJWs and others in their proper context.

Food for thought.

David

Post: #2

I like this idea.

G

Post: #3

I've also seen a lot of pro-islam in articles about the crusades. I almost gagged when I read the article on the Cordoba caliphate in Spain.

Post: #4

(01-07-2016 01:36 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  Food for thought.

David

Careful, she'll eat this too

Post: #5

While I agree with your sentiment, I think getting bogged down into edit wars with some autistic wiki-editors that will make it their life's mission to hawkishly watch for any changes in those articles is probably not a very fruitful use of your time. It's like trying to leave realtalk comments on some Daily Mail article: they'll just get drowned out in a swamp of pointless dribble or outright deleted. It's their liberal turf, we don't have control over it. It's probably better to build up your own sites where you CAN control the content

Post: #6

(01-07-2016 02:09 PM)Matsufubu Wrote:  Careful, she'll eat this too

In a years couple she's going to be one of the immobile "bed people". She'll be doing all her photo shoots from her house.

WB..........her arm, and try to concentrate on that lady in the tattoo.

Post: #7

^ that bitch is fucking grotesque. "Body-positive" progressive bullshit aside, she is hideous. I do not understand nor accept her as being any kind of mainstream beauty model. It's fetishist pornography at best. Something that damaged people with skewed perceptions and warped tastes from some sort of weird life trauma or emotional childhood abuse get off to, but nothing that general public should celebrate. She isn't even "plus size" she is morbidly obese and will surely die young from complications due to her corpulence.

Post: #8

Charles Darwin...where the hell are you?

Post: #9

(01-07-2016 03:27 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  While I agree with your sentiment, I think getting bogged down into edit wars with some autistic wiki-editors that will make it their life's mission to hawkishly watch for any changes in those articles is probably not a very fruitful use of your time.

Exactly this. You can't compete with no-friend shut-ins who reek of cat piss. Simply never, ever donate money to Wikipedia, and shame its use within your social circle. Remember the Leftie 80's mantra: Think Global, Act Local. If you're at a mate's place, and his kid is doing an assignment, casually-mention you read 'an article somewhere' saying researchers have found that children who use Wikipedia consistently rank much lower than their classmates in testing. "Something about in the information being wrong a lot of the time". Be sure to do it in earshot of the wife, and let female competitiveness do the rest, (since they basically 'race' their children against other mums). Mummy Bloggers are huge gossipers with a large social reach.

Remember, the left have shown us there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

Post: #10

(01-07-2016 04:12 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  Charles Darwin...where the hell are you?

Don't worry, he's here, at least in the form of lower Western birthrates. I mean, come on, WYB?

Post: #11

From the Talk section of that wiki page:

Quote:Relevance of morbid obesity[edit]
Tess Holliday IS morbidly obese and the that is deeply relevant to an article about her and her fat acceptance movement. Her BMI is 46.6. Morbid obesity is defined as either:

1. a body weight 100 pounds or more than what is medically recommended

or

2. a Body Mass Index (BMI) of over 40.

http://www.atlanticare.org/index.php/und...id-obesity

By either measure she is morbidly obese.

Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)



Agreed. Wikipedia is a sham. It doesn't have a neutral point of view. You can't express facts because fat people are overrepresented in the type of people that sit at home and edit wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.218.45 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Post: #12

Wikipedia is a good primer for physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and engineering. History and medicine-wise, it's ok as far as the most basic technical aspects go. Anything social, media or culture related, it's unreliable to the point of uselessness.

The areas where technical and cultural intersect are highly entertaining. Check out Matt Taylor's Wikipedia entry (the guy who was harrassed by feminists for his "sexist" t-shirt during the Rosetta landing):

Quote:While giving a televised status update on the Rosetta space craft, Taylor wore a shirt depicting scantily-clad cartoon women with firearms made by his friend Elly Prizeman.[13][14][15] Taylor's decision to wear the shirt to a press conference drew criticism from a number of commentators,[16][17] who saw a reflection of a culture where women are unwelcome in scientific fields.[15] Others, including Boris Johnson,[18] Julie Bindel[19] and Tim Stanley,[20] could not comprehend the ruckus.

Taylor later made a public apology, saying, in tears: "The shirt I wore this week – I made a big mistake, and I offended many people. And I'm very sorry about this".[21][22][23] Some writers expressed appreciation for Taylor's apology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taylo...ontroversy

TLDR of the entry:
- sexist scientist wears a misogynistic shirt that discourages women from entering science
- gets widely criticized and subjected to righteous anger
- his defenders are very few and "can't comprehend" the issue because they're stupid
- breaks down in tears and apologizes, is hugged for his atonement
- no mention of the massive backlash and anti-feminist sentiment this issue generated

It's clear that Wikipedia's motto should be: "Spergs gonna sperg."

Post: #13

The poz is completely in control of Wikipedia. Stop trying to influence people via that unwinnable method. Instead, have one-on-one chats with family and friends. Improve yourself. Get to the gym. Go out and stack some cash. Wikipedia is the footnotes, YOU need to go out and make YOUR contribution to HISTORY.

Post: #14

(01-07-2016 04:34 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 03:27 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  While I agree with your sentiment, I think getting bogged down into edit wars with some autistic wiki-editors that will make it their life's mission to hawkishly watch for any changes in those articles is probably not a very fruitful use of your time.

Exactly this. You can't compete with no-friend shut-ins who reek of cat piss. Simply never, ever donate money to Wikipedia, and shame its use within your social circle. Remember the Leftie 80's mantra: Think Global, Act Local. If you're at a mate's place, and his kid is doing an assignment, casually-mention you read 'an article somewhere' saying researchers have found that children who use Wikipedia consistently rank much lower than their classmates in testing. "Something about in the information being wrong a lot of the time". Be sure to do it in earshot of the wife, and let female competitiveness do the rest, (since they basically 'race' their children against other mums). Mummy Bloggers are huge gossipers with a large social reach.

Remember, the left have shown us there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

Whilst you're right, there's no need for a plan like this to be executed personally. If good ideas like this are seeded in the correct place (like /pol/, perhaps?), it's possible to get the lifeless zombies on your side to do all the legwork, with minimal investment.