"Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy!"
My profile
|
Not a trigger warning: This page can almost be triggering.
"WeLcOmE To wIkIpEdIa, ThE FrEe eNcYcLoPeDiA ThAt aNyOnE CaN EdIt."
This is completely true except that they want money and not anyone can edit.
I'm not even allowed to edit the article I originally wrote and created, but "anyone can edit"!
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has noted how Wikipedia is rank with bias. He said, " We don’t really know who edits Wikipedia or really calls the shots. There are paid professionals who have mastered the Wikipedia game. If you don’t play well with them, you’ll be banned quickly."
If I were you, I would not donate money to a biased company floating in money from left-wing operatives [1], such as Google. A company with financial backing of the most powerful corporation in the world wants to take money from people like you.
Compare the pages for Stacey Abrams and Donald Trump. For Trump, it says all over the place how everything he says is false. For Abrams, who is an election denier that made claims of election fraud that there is no evidence for, they just say it is "unable to be determined" whether is is true or not. If it were Trump, they would just say it was a false claim. The only place the word "false" appears in her article her saying something that a Republican did is false.
The real rules of Wikipedia:
- Not anyone can edit. Only special people (basement elites) can edit important articles.
- Wikipedia is home to left-wing slacktivists (basement elites) that spend their time reverting edits they disagree with or are unflattering to other left-wingers.
- Basement elites pretend that Wikipedia is objective, when in reality nearly everything on the site is subjective with the exception of very hard facts such as the score of the World Series. They pretend that there are concrete rules about what is allowed. In reality, certain pages are selectively enforced, with many pages existing with no sources at all. Basically, when a basement elite gets bored they go around looking for edits to revert that they disagree with or just want to show their "power."
- Most people go to Wikipedia looking for trivia, because trivia is fun. Although Wikipedia says it doesn't do trivia, thousands of pages rightfully contain it because one of the basement elites hasn't noticed it yet or likes the topic personally so they allow it.
- Only left-wing sources are allowed.
- "Conservative" journalists, organizations, and other entities must always be identified as such on Wikipedia. However, no one should ever be labeled as "liberal." For example, Tucker Carlson is a conservative journalist, but Don Lemon is just a journalist.
- Left-wing sources are immutably venerable.
- In practice, left-wing sources don't actually exist, because a left-wing source is just a venerable source.
- Since left-wing sources don't usually like to talk about sources and people that expose them, those people are not noteworthy.
- If the left-wing sources are engaged in a cover-up (which is frequent), the covered-up event is not noteworthy and did not happen.
- If one or two of the left-wing sources actually covers something unflattering to left-wingers, it still isn't notable enough.
- Wikipedia is Orwellian.
- Wikipedia maintains the absurd premise that editors edit in WP:GOODFAITH. As we know, people edit subjectively, selfishly, and with agendas.
- Wikipedia pretends that WP:GOODFAITH is not a guise for basement elites to control others.
- WP:ELITE actually used to be about not letting basement elite editors control everything. But they realized that's exactly what they want, so that's not what it is about anymore.
- Some pages can be informative and fun if not ruined by a basement elite.
- Have a great time!
My page was nominated for deletion in December 2021. I never knew Wikipedia user pages could get nominated for deletion on Wikipedia! That is really something, especially considering there were no personal attacks of any kind. As some in the deletion discussion pointed out, this proves my point that some on Wikipedia love censorship. Ultimately, the page was not deleted as more people said it should not be deleted. Another user said that saying Wikipedia was biased is "old," but of course, that does not make it untrue. Some also seemed to imply that Larry Sanger should not be taken seriously because he departed on bad terms, but that is also illogical. Some were definitely correct about how any publicity is good publicity. No one attempted to refute anything with legitimate argument. Anyway, I love Wikipedia. Did you see how many userboxes I have?