/gamergatehq/ - HULKAMANIA is running WILD!

>>319044

checked

wikipedia was always a shit source, people are just becoming more accepting of this fact. Despite some page's thorough citation, academia has always condemned it for its user-based sourcing and was always rejected for official papers seeking institutional validation.

There was MAAAAAAAYBE a period of time between 2007-2010ish where it almost became acceptable by lazy professors for their students in some schools, but it's definitely on the downslope again because of all these shenanigans. Founder didn't police it closely enough or care, just wanted those sweet, sweet $5 donation banner drive bux and angel investor money.

Whatever, it's not even proprietory tech now. Reputation and brand is everything on "Web 2.0" and these people are gonna learn the hard way that if your domains are shit, people will move on to other domains. All the useful info on wiki is already being backed up on other not-wikis and they come up in searches pretty often.

>>319055

Once, I heard someone ask if there was any "alternative" to Wikipedia.

IDK? You mean beside the entire fucking Internet?

I remember when Google became the number one search engine and the emergence of Wikipedia a few years later, slowly grinding it's way up to the 1st place.

The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that people get lazy and decide to only check one source of information. That's the real danger. Yet normies tend to think that "it's okay if you use the source of the articles", even though the sources are deliberately selected to maintain a narrative instead of covering the topic impartially.

>319077

> IDK? You mean beside the entire fucking Internet?

Maybe you weren't here two years ago when they censored the entire fucking internet including new sites trying to get off the ground and established sites on supposedly secure hosting. Try to launch any alternative to anything when someone you've never heard of pays someone else you've never heard of to ddos your site until you have a $15k bandwidth bill, and your registrar revokes your domain name, and every monetizing service kicks you off for no stated reason.

>>319084

Yes my dear friend, Wikipedia is about two years old.

The point is, if you search for a specific info, you can get it on any other website that is not Wikipedia. When you said "they censored the entire fucking internet", who is "they"? Jimbo?

Pretty sure I can still get the info I want without using wiki crap fest.

>>319044

I don't get one thing: stupid explanations aside ("code-heavy"?), why is a gender gap relevant for an encyclopedia?

Its stated goal is to be neutral and factual. Men and women have the same ability to write facts. Only two things matter here, command of wiki styles, which can be learned in 15 minutes, and command of whatever language you're writing for at the Wikipedia. Regardless of the editors' gender, articles should look the same because they're about facts, not about who wrote them.

Unless they're implicitly saying that yes, Wikipedia is centered around user biases and they want more "female" bias, which would also imply that all females think and process things in the exact same way. Because that train of though isn't sexist at all.

>>319100

That's what I thought too (reddit, 4chan, the purge from SA, now twitter, etc.), but we're talking about wikipedia…

And I check by the way, it's incredible because I've never noticed: when I make a search on google, the only result I get is Wikipedia, pages and pages of wikipedia, it's like there's no other place to find information on the net. /i

>>319117

You are trying to use logic on a feminist argument.

Do you seriously think they believe that male editors can be impartial and factual without a woman behind them watching their every keystroke?

This is the same group that seems to think society would thrive without men, and that men are inherently rapists…

>why is a gender gap relevant for an encyclopedia?

Because they don't care about facts, they only care about the gap.

Also, just an idea, what if everyone from now on who ever edits a wikipedia article just does it under a female name? That way they'll think there's a bigger presence and then maybe they'll fuck off.

>>319123

>Because [male feminists] don't care about facts, they only care about the gap.

Are you talking about the gap between their legs where their balls should be?

>>319044

the Archive.org link doesn't work for me but that Archive.is link does:

A Feminist Edit-a-Thon Seeks to Reshape Wikipedia

http://archive.is/C7B1I

>>319077

Its not the same, the reality is that wikipedia is just too fucking convenient and you can't expect lazy normalfags to put any effort anymore

Someone should at least try to make an alternative, even if its for-profit like all encyclopedias used to be

>>319421

Yeah I used archive.org because of the sticky