Post: #26

(01-05-2017 06:29 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I have a set of encyclopaedias from 1975.

It's always amusing to flip through them on anything topical, like communism for example.

I also have a guide to Africa written about 100 years ago. If I can dig it up I might just scan it.

What brand are yours? Mine are "Funk & Wagnalls".

Post: #27

I agree that the only good articles on Wikipedia are for science and math. The articles on history, politics, social science and biographies are full of left-wing globalist propaganda.

Post: #28

(01-05-2017 10:33 PM)Biologist Wrote:  I agree that the only good articles on Wikipedia are for science and math. The articles on history, politics, social science and biographies are full of left-wing globalist propaganda.

Quite a few of the military history articles are fairly good also, except for any dealing with wars between Poland and Russia. Polish and Russian editors have been viciously fighting over the slant in those articles for years.

Post: #29

(01-05-2017 08:38 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 06:29 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I have a set of encyclopaedias from 1975.

It's always amusing to flip through them on anything topical, like communism for example.

I also have a guide to Africa written about 100 years ago. If I can dig it up I might just scan it.

What brand are yours? Mine are "Funk & Wagnalls".

That might be it but I can't for the life of me remember. I'll have to dig them out of storage sometime.

They're bound in rust red hardcovers with black trim.

Post: #30

(01-03-2017 10:21 PM)armenia4ever Wrote:  This is why Infogalatic was started. It became clear after GamerGate where Jimmie Wales priorities lie. Wikipedia has been converged.

That's Jimmy Wales.

I knew him back in the mid 1990's, before he became famous. I met him at seminars for Ayn Rand followers. Jimmy Wales is hardly a social-justice warrior. Rand still influences a great deal of his attitude, especially his refusal to co-operate with the Chinese censors.

Is there room for improvement? There definitely is. But I don't know of any site that is doing something like this as well as Wikipedia is.

Post: #31

(01-04-2017 02:33 AM)SeriousG Wrote:  Then fight them, don't abandon the wikipedia. The_Donald didn't abandon reddit despite everything that happened there and The_Donald won that fight when reddit tried using every tool to wipe us out.

Fuck the_donald. That sub has turned to shit in the past 6 months.

They banned me for saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote in a thread about Hillary being voted the most admired woman in the world.

If you are a mod there, my direct message that ended up getting me banned from reddit still stands.

Post: #32

(01-04-2017 07:07 AM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  Think about this: there are autistic nerds/fanatical SJWs who literally have nothing to do all day than to sit at their computer and guard their chosen pet articles like hawks, endlessly debating each minute point and reverting edits to their liking. They have 24 hours per day to do that. Do you think it's a good use of your time to go up against them? Wikipedia is a lefty space, it's pointless to go against them if you actually have a life outside of the internet.

The problem isn't so much that they have more time on their hands. It's that some of them have become admins who abuse their powers, and when you go to complain about them, they and their friends try to get YOU kicked off Wikipedia for being disruptive. The ArbCom is another source of problems, since they can and will kick you off Wikipedia for criticizing Wikipedians from sites outside Wikipedia (e.g. Wikipediocracy or Encyclopedia Dramatica). They claim it's "harassment" if you do that, even if you weren't outing anyone or making any threats against them. A lot of dissidents have gotten kicked off that way.

Aside from that, though, another problem is that you have to cite "reliable sources" for everything you want to put in an article, and most of the available sources (e.g. the media and academic journals) are leftist. The place is also just a toxic environment in which to try to do any productive work, because of the snide attitudes and appeals to motive you encounter. The rules also get misinterpreted by people all the time, but that wouldn't be such a big problem if it were only regular users (rather than admins) doing that.

Post: #33

(05-13-2017 12:33 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 07:07 AM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  Think about this: there are autistic nerds/fanatical SJWs who literally have nothing to do all day than to sit at their computer and guard their chosen pet articles like hawks, endlessly debating each minute point and reverting edits to their liking. They have 24 hours per day to do that. Do you think it's a good use of your time to go up against them? Wikipedia is a lefty space, it's pointless to go against them if you actually have a life outside of the internet.

The problem isn't so much that they have more time on their hands. It's that some of them have become admins who abuse their powers, and when you go to complain about them, they and their friends try to get YOU kicked off Wikipedia for being disruptive. The ArbCom is another source of problems, since they can and will kick you off Wikipedia for criticizing Wikipedians from sites outside Wikipedia (e.g. Wikipediocracy or Encyclopedia Dramatica). They claim it's "harassment" if you do that, even if you weren't outing anyone or making any threats against them. A lot of dissidents have gotten kicked off that way.

Aside from that, though, another problem is that you have to cite "reliable sources" for everything you want to put in an article, and most of the available sources (e.g. the media and academic journals) are leftist. The place is also just a toxic environment in which to try to do any productive work, because of the snide attitudes and appeals to motive you encounter. The rules also get misinterpreted by people all the time, but that wouldn't be such a big problem if it were only regular users (rather than admins) doing that.

Post: #34

(01-05-2017 06:29 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I have a set of encyclopaedias from 1975.

It's always amusing to flip through them on anything topical, like communism for example.

I also have a guide to Africa written about 100 years ago. If I can dig it up I might just scan it.

The young Paracelsus grew up with CIAbook, er, World Book, baby

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #35

Encyclopedia Dramatica is probably closer to the truth at this point.