/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12597003
happy birthday :)
great resource
has some problems but the world is better for having it
one of the only good things to come out of web 2.0

>*literally rewrites history to prove you wrong*
heh, nothin personnel nazi

>>12597003
>I donated $10
You did something good today, be proud.

>>12597723
Thanks anon, it felt good and I want to do more acts of charity now

>>12597877

>>12597003
I donated $5 a few weeks ago. Literally the only time I have ever donated. Wikipedia deserves it.

Well i charged them 10$ for choosing political correctness over facts

>Begged me to donate last 10 years
>Haven't given them a single dime

>>12597003
I've never donated to wiki because I'm a stingy blue
Tell you what I'll do it as soon as I get a 4chan pass

>>12597924
good job fren

Good job Anon!

based anon

fuck wikipedia, they're worst than big tech when it comes to censorship and groupthinking, you probably have never been involved in depth with the community as an volunteer editor, they're fucking trash

>>12599264
why what's wrong with wikipedia
I mean, I get that literally anyone can edit shit, but it's still somewhat curated

>>12599264
>t. Nazi
Seethe

>>12599525
>anyone left of communism is a nazi
please rope yourself

Don't waste your money. WP suffers from enormous administrative bloat and will collapse soon enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
>The modern (2015) Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting, has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall.

>>12597003
>>12597294
>>12599502
>>12599525
Wikipedia is a failed project. It was, from 2001-2006, a great experiment in collaborative writing, but it failed on the moderatorship, and from 2007-2010, it closed itself off, and became impossible to edit and impossible to expand, and dominated by deletionist minded bureaucrats who prevent it from fulfilling its mission. It assigns moderatorship by elections, and the elections select tiers of hierarchical administrators, culminating in the ArbCom, which is a big mistake. This turns it into a totalitarian democracy, like the Soviet Union. The ArbCom is like the politburo, and you need to tow the line to stay in the organization. Anyone who is politically slightly less than popular, or has a strange idea, is marginalized, ostracized, and finally blocked. This is a catastrophe, as this means that ridiculous rules, narrowly interpreted, are now used to prevent people from writing things that disseminate knowledge in the encyclopedia. The rules are stupid, and it was always clear they were stupid, but they were expanded and became more draconian with time, with the main phase transition in 2007. We've already been through this political process before, as humans, it's in the collective memory, it's the exact same political catastrophe that happened in the Soviet Union.

>>12599537
>Wikipedia is literally communist

>>12597003
>>12597294
>>12599502
>>12599525
The only solution is to scrap the site, fork it, and start over with a new political system. In order to smash through a consensus, you need to respect minority positions, and allow them space to gather arguments, be heard, and when they are correct, to displace majority positions. This only happens under conditions of total freedom, and ability to fork. You can't do it by consensus processes, and there are cases, like biogenic petroleum, where the consensus is brain dead. So you need to constantly allow forking, challenge, and a procedure for the fork to win over the main page. This cannot happen on Wikipedia, it is permanently stuck in its politburo stage, so there is really nothing to do with it anymore. It still has good content, almost all from before 2007, which can be freely used in a later fork.

>>12599569
>it's the exact same political catastrophe that happened in the Soviet Union
lmao see >>12599570

>>12599574
see >>12599571

>>12597003
Congrats

>>12599576
see >>12599570

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Oh boy I sure do love my indoctrination and sjw mass editing articles to change narratives and redefine reality.
Exactly what I want to encourage with my money, after all I'm just a useless goy only existent to please my cut overlords as a willing slave and minion.
Licking boots and wallowing in self pity is my greatest joy.

Just check out the editing history of the domestic terrorism article immediately after the capitol situation.
Wild times we living in.

>>12599574
>>12599585
>Wikipedia is literally communist
I don't understand how this relates to my post, please explain! Seriously, either you've never tried writing for wikipedia, or you straight up didn't read what I said. Or maybe you're just a brainlet.

>>12599606
>it's the exact same political catastrophe that happened in the Soviet Union.

should have donated to metapedia instead

>>12599608
Here's what happened, anon. Sometime around 2006-7, the deletionists won, the inclusionists left, and then the deletionists, true to their name, deleted everything they could. After that fiasco, they took over the ArbCom, and booted out anyone who was writing anything.

The deletionist debate was then replaced by the "loose citation" "strict citation" split. This was whether claims needed to be individually cited sentence by sentence or whether you can write an original text so long as the claims are reasonably accurate when examined in light of all the sources together, evaluated critically as a whole. The strict citationists won that debate, so you can't write anything useful anymore.

This is most harmful when there are ab-initio arguments which can be followed by anyone versed in the field, but which are not found verbatim in sources. This is a common situation in mathematics and physics, where new proofs have no source, but are clearly and obviously uncontestable, as they're equivalent to existing stuff that's well accepted. The strict citationists now can prevent new articles from getting written, but thankfully they're too stupid to read mathematical sources to even verify whether the claim and the source agree, so you can snow them easily and get them out of your hair for a while, at least if you fill up a page with equations.

The politics on the site is abominable, you can't do anything useful anymore. Anything you write gets a stream of "citation required" tags and then it gets deleted, no matter how supportable. Providing citations doesn't help with politically resisted stuff, or even with just surprising sounding but well accepted stuff, because the talk pages aren't allowed to debate the topic, just the claims of sources about the topic, and the decision is ultimately entirely political, based on numbers for and against. Because of this, the people there have evolved a power structure which has absolutely no regard for accuracy. Pic-related.

bump

>>12599999
WASTED

>>12600000
fuck who got it

It's used in a way to control how people think by heavily editing articles just as they become relevant in the public eye, filling it with garbage and shitty sources from click-bait news articles that don't source anything and were probably made for the only intention to work as a wikipedia source.

>>12597003
Wikipedia is garbage, If you actually gave money to it then you are literally double digit.

>>12599999

Retard

>>12599599
even left leaning Harvard academics admit it in the fucking NYT

Or check the wikipedia article of the new racist DOJ official Biden appointed. You cant link the Harvard article where she wrote that blacks are superior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Clarke

I also donated :) Wiki has saved me a few times.

>>12597003
u mean free propaganda

>>12599502
It’s a shithole, extremely biased, full of sock puppeteers, actual autists engaging in lame edit wars, taking it personal and ganging up on you to have a mod IP range ban you by autistically claiming you’ve violated dozens of obscure edit rules which btw you only accidentally did so because they end up undoing all of your edits so when you edit them back bam you’re banned for abusing the editing.

Let me give you an example, I remember there’s this autistic fag who goes out of his way to get UFO articles either deleted or suppressed because guess what? The reports are not up to his standards so they must have never happened. I remember he was responsible for having the USS Nimitz UFO article deleted, now it redirects to another very shallow article about the pentagon declassified videos, so all of the details, the witnesses testimonies etc were suppressed. You can find a lot of similar cases by checking the talk/history in the article’s page. It’s a fucking toxic place.

Also check out /r/WikiInAction, they have way more examples of Wikipedia corruption etc

>>12600478
/r/WikipediaInAction

>>12599569
fork and make it better

>>12597003
I gave them $20 last year.
I saw no decrease in beggar popups and I have the added bonus of now receiving beggar emails.

>>12600478
They did the same thing with Project Pandora. Now redirects to "Electronic harassment"

>>12597003
>all of the free knowledge they have given me and the world.
That explains all the retards despite easy access to abortion.

Wikipedia is a great website.