Skip to main content


lol elon's fans are telling him to deal with Wikipedia threatening to delete the article on his dumb email pseudo-story by buying Wikipedia too

like, he can't. but my god, if he thought he bought a barrel of rabid squirrels with Twitter.

the article on his dumb email pseudo-story is staying, at least for now. because a ton of solid Reliable Sources have come to the party and clowned hard on Musk and Taibbi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files_Investigation
This entry was edited (1 year ago)

reshared this

in reply to David Gerard

@David Gerard Same with people trying to give a sick burn saying he's gonna buy mastodon next lol
in reply to David Gerard

I was really hoping Jimmy Wales would just come right out and tell him to jump up his own butt
in reply to mav :happy_blob:

@mav jimbo's actual job at Wikipedia is public relations, and he knows how to pick his battles
in reply to David Gerard

yeah, I know, and he's smarter than me for being in a place where he *could* say something and saying nothing
in reply to mav :happy_blob:

@mav whereas i'm the guy who personally removed 26,000 links to the Daily Mail and 8,000 links to The Sun. Boy do I know about shit sourcing in Wikipedia.
in reply to David Gerard

that's rad!

Is Wikipedia editing as insular as it seems from the outside? I've used it forever obviously but never really submitted anything because it seemed like it was just going to get erased.
in reply to mav :happy_blob:

is wikipedia editing as insular as it looks?

1. no not at all, just bring good sources and you're golden! 2. yes, it's horribly insular because of a continous barrage of spam and idiots.

(do bring the good sources. fuckwits will still argue with them, and you're not allowed to actually call them fuckwits. the good sources do eventually win though.)

read the talk pages of articles. if you think "this is great, fits my way of working" you'll probably be fine. if you think "what is *wrong* with you people," you will have a correct understanding and may also be fine.

it's the ultimate nerd wars. the dwarf fortress of writing.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)

David Gerard reshared this.

in reply to David Gerard

Also if Wikipedia is too daunting in terms of policy and you want to write about disinformation, you can always try to edit RationalWiki.

We're a *bit* looser in terms of source/no original research policy (just don't link bad sources, that'll still get zapped) and we do permit you to point out when a fuckwit is being a fuckwit. Don't be a jerk and you'll probably fit right in.
in reply to David Gerard

All this talk about the Twitter files and still people aren't talking about #emptyburgergate
In fact literally nobody is talking about #emptyburgergate which should raise a few eyebrows. I search the web for #emptyburgergate and there's nothing. Empty. Wikipedia? Nothing.

David Gerard reshared this.

Unknown parent

David Gerard
@cybeardjm @mav my secret power is combat bureaucracy, some of which i wrote
in reply to David Gerard

@cybeardjm ah, I love this turn of phrase, I'm going to have to pass it along to my boss who I now realize is my work's resident combat bureaucrat