The Court That Settles Wikipedia Editor Drama 

It gets worse when you learn that the CIA has basically free reign to edit and write smears on anyone's page they want, at least judging by the fact their libel and vandalism goes on uncorrected even to this day.

They have the WP:HAPPYPLACE redirect for it for a reason!

Sometime in the future, I'll remember that Wikipedia disputes exist, and be grateful knowing that there are people out there sacrificing their sanity for the sake of me knowing what the proper word for a box shaped metal container should be.

Like the time they argued over a picture of a cow on the article for Cow Tipping. The picture was captioned "an unsuspecting victim" and those nerds started arguing that maybe the cow had been tipped once before and therefore was not "unsuspecting". They ended up just deleting the image.

It’s like politics, but with constantly-online nerds.

that went from 0 to 100 real fucking quick

Lmao

...problem solved?

Who didn’t he like?

Who's the guy?

We're on the way to his place now 😂

not sure they’re really as big of a threat as ppl make them out to be tbh

@@goblingoochgobbler5759 they're a danger to their cult members but that's about all

@@goblingoochgobbler5759 Agreed

@@ryshow9118 In the past fifteen years their influince has wained greatly. In the prior twenty five it wainedgreatly from their height in the seventies and eighties where they infiltrated the IRS. They are dying. Slowly, too slowly really, and fitfully.

We had a whole debate about keeping an article about "The Line", the queue for her funeral that stretched for miles... Was it notable for its own article, or should it be merged into the one on her death. I don't remember what the outcome was, but the minutiae of life are what make it worthwhile.

Bros really were racing to change her pronoun to was/were

@@brianbarker2551 There's apparently a Wikipedia page for "The Queue" - is that it?

​@@FoxHoundCReatorFS was is dead

The wikipedia is the source of information for a lot of people. It's most important than a lot of jobs.

Imagine if the US supreme court was made up of people as reasonable and trustworthy as Wikipedia's arbcom. Improbable, I know.

The following are all current or former arbs: Barkeep49 CaptainEek Beeblebrox Wugapodes GorillaWarfare Seraphimblade The Cunctator Wizardman Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry I think what makes this even funnier is that there have been a few arbs with just completely ordinary people names. So for instance, a recent ex-arb is "Donald Albury". He's just a guy! He's just a guy on the same important internet body as CaptainEek and Beeblebrox!

They are still probably better than the religious nuts currently in the US supreme court lol

There will come a time when your "username" is just as important as your given name. Then we shall bask in the glory of Supreme Court Justice The Right Honorable XxPussyDestroyer69xX.

@@brianb.6356 Imagine being on a governing internet body with The President of the Galaxy though.

Is anyone paying for their expensive vacations?

Alas monty python years of running were all in the 60's 70's Imagine what great things they could've done in the last ten years alone

Already is, just looking at the drama that unfolds with every case. Or hell, just look at the whole fiasco regarding Jews in Poland.

CollegeHumor did a "Professor Wikipedia" a while back and it was amazing. Would love to see something similar with this idea!

Should be an SNL skit

😂

We put it back. Mostly.

How very Joe West of Joe West

To be fair Wikipedia has real guidelines for the pages of sports officials, and in my experience most related pages don’t follow them. Generally, the pages are supposed to provide a balanced representation of not just negative things but positive things about their careers, but pretty much every page about sports officials tends to emphasize their errors much more heavily than the stuff they did well.

@@smala017 True. But we have to have sourced material to use. The proper place to request deletion of unflattering (but sourced) material about oneself is the talk page for the article. There are several ways to get untrue information removed, but wholesale deletion by the subject of the article is frowned upon. One is not supposed to edit articles when one has a connection to the subject of the article, and this is particularly true of biographies of living persons.

Was it this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Terminal_Event_Management_Policy

My favourite quote from the article: All contents of the encyclopedia are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. As this license allows distribution of content in any medium, either commercially or non-commercially, copies of articles may be bartered for essentials such as food and water, although "all previous authors of the work must be attributed" in any copy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Terminal_Event_Management_Policy

Actually, if kinda surprised that in printing they don't add a hash to verify the integrity of the print

@@William190 "While the light of humanity may flicker and die, we go gently into this dark night, comforted in the knowledge that someday Wikipedia shall take its rightful place as part of a consensus-built Galactic Encyclopedia, editable by all sentient beings." That got deep real fast. Also, it does say that it's a joke, but the talk page is like "wait, seriously? it's not real?"

Oh my god. I never knew that existed. Just read it and it's amazing. 😂 The last quote is gold. XD

Having jurisdiction over who *gets to decide what content stands* is effectively deciding what the content is.

Yeah, but they are democratically elected

Banning people who lie is effectively content control. And that is obviously a good thing.

​@@x--. Assuming that those people are lying, and that those given authority to edit articles aren't just pushing some ideological narrative that AbCom agrees with.

@@obliviouz The ArbCom can make its decisions based on the conduct of editors. If the editor is repeatedly editing an article, against the consensus of other Wikipedia editors, that would be a conduct issue. If two editors are in a conflict over an article in good faith, that would not be something that ArbCom would rule over.

Huh I had no idea that Ben was still writing these videos

​@@links212 Check the video description.

Wow didn't even notice Ben wrote this one. Feels like it's been a while since I've seen one from Ben or Adam.

I mean, probably only 1-2 articles...it's the depths of our policy pages that should have killed him off

At least one

Given that HAI has repeatedly admitted to basically being a repackaging of the list of interesting Wikipedia articles, it's a pretty clear citogenesis risk, yeah.

OR……if he is like “boring-me” he looks up Half as Interesting on Wikipedia and finds out there’s a page about something (or in boring-me’s case someONE) else!!! I excited “I” have a page on Wikipedia!!!! I’m sad that its NOT about “boring-me” but someone else close to my age and appearance, that has a profession doing things I enjoy doing. I feel like he’s my copycat but in all honesty I can’t fault anyone fur feeling I’m the copycat…….. conundrum you heartless wench…….

Wikipedia, now with references to RU-vid hit series “That Wikipedia List”

It's called circular reporting, check out the aforementioned Citogenesis, Alan McMasters, and Wikiality.

@@deus_ex_machina_ (yes thats the joke)

It's because Wikipedia firmly believes every word that is not a proper noun in a title needs to be lowercased. They've believed this for their entire existence, every English teacher in the US and UK has vehemently disagreed with them. And this idea's spread to other wikis. There are proper, standardized rules on title capitalization in the English language but Wikipedia chooses to ignore it. It comes out of laziness. Less things capitalized means you spend less time typing page links. So they fight really, really hard to lowercase everything.

@@emma5068 oh no! the debate continues here! What have I done :0

​@@emma5068according to google. There is like 4 main title capitalization style. Which one are you referring?

@@emma5068 Except (to continue a debate that I knew of but thankfully avoided at the time) it's not really "Wikipedia" here, merely enough for the guideline to be written. If it had been all the regulars vs just newcomers complaining, the debate would have never hit 40k. Instead it's some proper "inside baseball" dispute, too

​​@@emma5068 The Manual of Style actually says that prepositions with over 4 letters are capitalized ("Cards _Against_ Humanity", "I Heard It _Through_ the Grapevine") and other prepositions are lowercased unless it's at the start of a title or subtitle. It's not "every" word that's not a proper noun. The manual is a guideline though; editors should generally follow it - not always. It was unclear if "Into Darkness" was a subtitle or not (the film title doesn't have a semicolon), so the manual was discarded, and common usage of the title was applied.

I was actually a small part of that! I saw it come up and I was like "what? Why does this mean anything?" and I reverted it. I had no idea it kept on spiraling.

They’re still trying to resolve it right now even

@@blakem2902 wut? wtf is going on in there?

Oh I heard of that yesterday and I was quite confused

Now change the Catholic to Protestant Sit back and enjoy the spiral

I'm always amazed at some of the long term sockpuppet account makers and the exact petty reasons of why they've kept up their over a decade long odysseys. Yes, a lot of them do it because they're super bigoted in some way or another or believe in some pseudoscience nonsense and keep wanting to push that in articles. But there's plenty more that are obsessed with the most inconsequential things.

@@Silverizael Yeah I dont edit any political articles, just car stuff, so most of the persistent editors I see are doing it either because of passion for a particular car, or they've made it their pet project and they want some level of control

@@Silverizael the ones that kill me are the ones that people pay to create articles for them, like a PR firm, they get all bent out of shape when their crypto "entrepreneur" client isn't notable. Here's 40 citations about him, on blogs and PR pages! Oh my son, let's explain notability to you...

@@brianbarker2551 They would be so much better off using that money to get in on some interviews and get stuff written about them in newspapers and such.

Sounds like he should be a Reddit Admin/Mod, they are just as insane

Poor Jimmy. He built a generally very good and useful tool. Now his own creation has been stripped from him 😞

What the fuck is "desysop"?

@@PintoRagazzo Sysop is short for System Operator. Sysopping someone means that you give them sysop privileges. By extension, desysopping someone takes those privileges away.

@@PintoRagazzoDesysop means removal of admin privileges. You often see a lot of Wikipedia jargon but there is a page which explains these jargon

If I was the founder of Wikipedia I'd make sure that I have absolute control over the hosting and the database and then say "whoever tries to desysop me will be desysoped by me".

E‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎

Only Hitler would ask that question.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

because one guy brought it up once, and everyone shat on him for it

Fun coincidence: the person who came up with that law was later the General Councel of the non-profit behind Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aluminium/Spelling/Archive_1#raw_Google

That's hilarious.

Ah yes, the one that eventually got its own Wikipedia article about it!

E‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎

This is becoming disturbingly common. People will add a statement, provide a cite, and then... you look up the citation source, and... whadooyano, the claim ain't fuckin there. WP:SYN is also rampant.

It would be a real Wikipedia moment if that was some very insignificant king as well😅

Is your edit still up? If not I could help lol.

AbsCom.

I’ve been editing a few years and have many articles to my name now. I find it’s best to find a niche few spaces nobody else is bothered by and start there

Yo what's your Wikipedia username so I can give you a barnstar?

I agree. The drama at ANI goes on all the time, we recently just see someone got C-banned for multiple personal attacks and telling people to "jog the f*** on" and other offensive comments. I am not going to call names out though but you are going to find it in the recent archives.

​@@CJ.1998X.Y.ZI also do that. Created some article with no one else bothering me

based

That doesn't happen? The closest thing to points being awarded are barnstars, which are given when you do a good job editing, but they don't do anything other than show thanks and look nice on talk/user pages.

It's not a score, and should not be treated as such (edit-countitis). It's called an edit count, and if you have more edits, you gain certain privileges.

@@quokka_ytEven then, after a month and 500 edits, you really only get so many privileges. The real only thing xcon gets you that I have noticed is that you get to edit a few more pages and can sign up for reviewer stuff.

​@@quokka_ytshould be "edit countmania." The "itis" suffix relates to inflammation. It sounds like it's treated exactly like a score. If having a higher count allows you different privileges or unlocks certain features that certainly sounds like a basic scoring system.

@@9HighFlyer9 It's 10 edits and 4 days old for confirmed status (basically to confirm you aren't a bot), and you can edit most pages, and get privileges like uploading images.

I honestly believe Wikipedia is one of mankind's highest achievements

I mean... It is... Right?

@@JeffDvrxunless it’s anything political. Anything that even comes within a country mile of political opinion. I mean from abortion to Covid on down. Wikipedia is one-sided beyond belief. I’ll use it to find out the population of New Zealand, or about giraffes, but there’s zero chance I would take it as a serious source of information about anything that has even the slightest political connotation to it.

@@jasondashneyhow so?

@@Ariceres The fact that it can be edited by anyone makes it not good for anything political. Not sure though why he included COVID (unless he's talking about a certain country denying their involvement in it), but some of the political issues in the site are biased. Never really saw this problem on abortion though, since most of the information stated have their own sources that aren't opinionated as well.

Hearsay! Sentenced to 1 year no keyboard privileges.

@@theenzoferrari458 😂😂😂

I never checked it but boy oh boy am I going to join the madness lol, I was born to be a Wikipedia editor and I never knew it

@Crusader1096. It's pathetic..haven't you got anything better to do?..seriously..get a job/friends...something!😜

Someone should just make a RU-vid channel that only talks about Wikipedia drama

Yes!!

You're lucky it hasn't been deleted just because some dickfer has never heard of it.

I'd be shocked if they haven't been working on it for years.

@@Brasswatchman Scientologists aren't the most "with it" kind of people. Like most cultists they tend to live insular lives and only react to things once they finally encounter them. Their fearsome reputation comes from being relentless reactionaries, not from being five moves ahead in the game.

@@LividImp This is the reason why they have a really hard time against the 4chans back then. They underestimated their prowess, and only reacted after 4chan (led by Anonymous) waged war against them with a video). And since 4chan is a mass of anonymous people, the Church of Scientology can't focused its attacks on a singular point (thus partially nullifying their strength).

I had a full and frank discussion with someone about this very topic, and I went to WP expecting to find Alex's changes, and they weren't there! It's hard to win an argument when you have to show someone a whole video series proving your point.

It lays bare the sheer folly of some of the DR process on WP, with people, including admins, acting like they know what the real truth is. This is all against guidelines, but they don't care, they know better, and they're admins, so no one can fuck with them. It's very much a "blue wall" situation.

People who cite Wikipedia are idiots in my opinion. Like even experienced Wikipedia editors don't cite Wikipedia directly (and I know a few from Discord servers).

That actually reminds me of a different video about Wikipedia having inaccurate info for Austria-Hungary's flags for so long, that the perception that the flag was correct was getting used in the Wikipedia discussion

I live every part, including the nerd supreme court. Truth and knowledge are vital.

yeah. honestly they've been on a roll lately with interesting subjects and funny writing.

Now you make me wonder if that happens in Spanish. Lmao

Do they not have a template that states "hey, this articles spelling is in {European/Brazilian} Portuguese", the English Wikipedia has one for British/American spelling (and I think for a couple more niche ones like Canadian and Australian spelling)

@@tauiin As a Canadian...since when are there Canadian spellings of anything? We either pick the US spelling or the British spelling. Is it words that Brits don't use at all but clearly should have an "ou" like in colour?

@@WildBluntHickok I'm not sure that there is any specific word that is spelt uniquely in Canadian English compared to other English spelling systems, but generally a spelling system is considered different based on the group of words not because any specific words are spelt uniquely compared to other dialects (e.g. American English might have "X" and "Y" words spelt differently to British English, while Canadian English might spell "Y" like the Americans and "X" like the British, and the Australians would do the opposite and have "Y" spelt like the British and "X" spelt like the Americans etc etc.)

​@@WildBluntHickok There's a whole Wikipedia article about Canadian English

My first edit was adding Chief Keef to the list of famous Kieths and it went down very smoothly. No wikipedia nerd dared to question me on this I guess.

You'd think there'd be a guideline by now of a blanket rule for such pages.

Victims deserve to have their privacy respected and not to have their name blasted everywhere. And wikipedia shouldn't put so much about these attention seeking mass murderers either. The media is largely to blame for the mass shooting culture by the way they cover and obsess about these things. So yeah, you're a horrible person.

That definitely seems problematic due to publishing names of private individuals, and the privacy of victims. There is a reason names of victims aren't widely publicized by those who are not next of kin (where it is genuinely a memorial intent)

That reads like some arguments made at the 2009 Fort Hood Shooting talk page.

Umm... aKtShUaLlY, ☝️🤓 According to "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", Wikipedia is not a social media.

So what/who is infallible? If everything is fallible -why would anyone need reminding of a basic fact of life? And why did Wiki require special reminding?

@@LENZ5369 me

"Who judges the judge?" -- Clarence Tomas of course, he's incorruptible.

​@Caleb's Unremarkable RU-vid Channel except God isn't real.

@@calebisthebigdumb people claim that god is the ultimate judge.

Make like the British and make everyone unhappy by using "Mohammedan"

Yup. So much lost potential.

Basically my experience with wikipedia too. I was fixing typos until an admin didn't like me fixing one of their typos so they banned me. Annnnd I'm done with wikipedia. You can keep your mistakes.

And did you try to to bring it up on the talk page

@@Ucfahmad no I had no desire to deal with it after that

I'm a frequent editor and I've literally never been reverted on a grammatical correction. And when I do get reverted, 95% they type out an explanation. Don't get me wrong it's not perfect and there are certainly some arrogant jerks but it shouldn't prevent people from editing when they want to improve something

Well… there's also the whole "That Wikipedia List" series.

It goes both ways too. WP needs to be neutral. Some people think that this means what *they* say. With pseudoscience, all you can really do is provide the claims, and the counter evidence, in a neutral a non-implicational way. But the "TIGERS" on one side will insist you use *their* analysis or *their* wording as it is "correct." WP isn't about judging the topic of the article, but to simply cover what is available information about it, and not make value judgements on that information outside of it's reliability and verifiability. So even if I agree that the topic is bullshit, it's not my place to write the article to say so. I dealt with this for a *long* time on a supernatural topic article until the self proclaimed arbiters of truth gave up. If you see a Wikipedia page say "but that's wrong," without attribution, or tautological reason, it shouldn't be there. Some people don't like that.

@@romulusnr You just tried to argue for the "middle ground" fallacy, or the "argument to moderation" fallacy. Either there is strong, rational evidence for a conclusion or there is no not. Tautology also isn't reason; it's a phrasing/framing technique. Reason is based on formal logic or strong measurable evidence. Believing something is "true" and using circular logic and tautology isn't a form of evidence. It's perfectly reasonable for people to call out incorrect information/information lacking in any rational backing. People are not "self-proclaimed arbiters of truth"; they're acknowledging whether or not external tools, like science and formal logic, back up people's statements. Attribution is also an issue because "truth" isn't authoritative or democratic. The only purpose of peer-review is for people to see if there are any flaws in experimentation or reasoning, and to engage in double-blind independent replicative research that either confirms or doesn't confirm claims. Qualitative and Quantitative Value Judgements are fully within the realm of science and logic as well. Science can make conclusive statements about outcomes and effects. It is never rational to jam-pack in all pseudo-science and mislogic claims in articles about a topic unless they're prevalent in the culture and thus need to be addressed.

Yes, and the people who choose the reporters on the news don't take a position on content either.

​@@x--. ARBCOM is more like a BAR review committee, they don't care about who you represent just how you represent them.

Yeah, you can be correct on the content and even backed by consensus from the rest of the editing community, but if you acted abusively or violated other rules in the process, it wouldn't be surprising to get some sort of punishment.

Yeah. The key, I think, is to edit and walk away.... If someone else feels like they own that article it can turn into a time stick real quick. I may have won an effort war with an effective compromise but the emotional toll wasn't worth it.

Eh....that's not really a good idea. People on Wikipedia (including me) tend to try to not talk about them on Wikipedia for a good reason: it just gives them the attention they want.

@@blazewolf9912 Yeah, but boing boing seemingly didn't get the memo, so at this point why bother caring whether they want attention anyway?

But in the case shedding light on the problem could make it worse although I think it would make a great video

@@adirangasetlur9108 At the same time, there's only around 120 people who are considered active LTA, and I highly doubt the majority of people, including people who would be be willing to do a bit of vandalism/trolling would even have the time or effort to constantly vandalize Wikipedia for years on end. Though that doesn't mean somebody won't, especially if they have a POV to push.

@@blazewolf9912 or maybe because it gives a bad name to Wikipedia? Always found Wikipedia's self-criticizing article on Wikipedia oddly lacking.

What parts would you edit to correct?

This is so obvious I assume they are just getting trolled. That said, is a tin box notable like the tin can?

"typically one made of metal" Tin is indeed a metal.

@@x--. A tin box is just "a tin"

@@mrfamous333 :D

hitler look I'm contributing

Centrists in a nutshell

Aluminum*

@@neoieo5832 aluminium*

@@neoieo5832 Almnm. There, now no-one gets any I's or U's.

​@@mattd6085 alumni

@@mattd6085 lol

What do you like to edit on Wikipedia? I got into a Wikipedia edit war once on the Duolingo Wikipedia article

​@@littleolliebenjy first of all, stop participating in edit wars. That's how you can like editing Wikipedia.

@@thastayapongsak4422 I like editing on Wikipedia. What about you? I like WWE

@@littleolliebenjy articles on the interstate and US highway systems.

They put plenty of energy into holding politicians on one side accountable, the other...not so much.

@@Locke42485 Something's wrong with your country if there's only 2 sides.

It's true though, you shouldn't use Wikipedia's text. But you totally should go follow the footnotes and look up the sources that were used to make the page as *those* are reliable. Wikipedia itself does not consider Wikipedia itself to be a reliable source for Wikipedia content.

Wikipedia also considers itself a peddler of government propaganda (See their page, "Wikipedia is a follower, not a leader"), so that you don't need evidence at all to propagate the narrative but, to dispute it, no evidence is good enough.

Wikipedia is not a source, it is a collection of sources.

@@romulusnr ​ i mean the reason why wikipedia pages shouldnt be cited for other wikipedia pages is to prevent circular sourcing, where two pages can cite each other on anything but following the sources are a very useful thing to do, even if most of them are archives

@@phoenixnoire2435 and the page that youre talking about doesnt exist

Heh, I updated the main image (with one of my own) for the article on the town I used to live in, because the original image was so nondescript. A few years later someone is in the local paper's letters section bitching about why the Wikipedia page has such a shitty image on it. Fucking go take a better picture and change it your fucking self like I did, Karen.

For the 2nd time

they lack the mojo they used to have. Their (organizational) death cannot come soon enough though.

Clearly has a death wish.

Is there some kind of omerta on Scientology?

@@marcusdurr1223 Yeah, on pain of... well, lawsuits, harassment campaigns, and (alleged) assassinations at the hands of their intelligence agency, depending how much of a 'threat' you're considered. But they're fading in power, so it's _probably_ safe...

Wait. You think " pump up the jam" is techno?

@Rami Slicer Don't bite

They have a system for dealing with that sort of problem. For the most part, it doesn't need to go through the whole process again, and the person can basically be banned on sight as soon as they figure out who it is. If necessary, an editor's IP address can be consulted to determine whether two accounts are probably the same person, but behavioral evidence is often enough (because many of these trolls have very specific mannerisms and topic areas of interest).

Wikipedia has a surprisingly sophisticated process for detecting sockpuppetry.

@@brianb.6356 and meatpuppetry, when the get other people to edit for them.

To clarify: Active in Wikipedia for 20 years, I've only been on the AfD for the last year or so. I prefer my privacy so won't post my username on Wikipedia here, but you can figure it out if you look hard enough.

@@brianbarker2551 No one cares, clean up your own swamp, wikipedia is a biased joke.

Yes but as an occasional editor of wikipedia articles that I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams could be controversial, I can assure you there is no topic in the world that nobody feels passionate about.

@@tessjuel True. I think it's the desire for things to be 'just right' and correct the annoying errors that made me join in the first place. *EDIT* But my point is that there are also many corners of Wikipedia that are under-patrolled because it's a narrow subject few people visit.

@@David_Crayford We have various tools to try and mitigate this issue by having the tools show us all edits made to every single article and highlight which ones may be problematic.

What are these tools that could detect possible problematic edits?

@@iantaakalla8180 There aren't any tools and that's part of it. Anything can turn out to be problematic. Somebody somewhere is bound to be offended if you dare claim that water is wet.

I'd fucking love that kind of free time and lack of urgency in life

well, people always love correcting other

@@mattd6085 No - they're all severely mentally ill.

you'll love reddit then, or just about any other chat forum...

This is exactly the problem with Wikipedia I ran into. They SAY they want anyone to edit but that is a total lie! They want you to learn their whole system and then do an edit. They should just allow subject matter experts, as you are, to contest content WAY EASILY and either list both or figure it out themselves. Absolutely annoying that they pushed you out.

This is a huge problem in academia more generally as well. Oral history is seen as less accurate than written history

Yeah. Now think about all the people who come in saying "I KNOW that all inhabitants of Israel are evil" or "I KNOW that if you deny the Prophet Muhammad you're going to hell" or "I KNOW that aliens have appointed me god-dictator of the earth", their justification being "I'm an expert, believe me. Source: trust me bro." Tell me, what would you do if your First Nation name was changed to something deeply racist by a self-appointed "subject matter expert" who Wikipedia freely allowed to edit articles? At the end of the day, you being soured on Wikipedia is better than it descending into chaos.

@@liam6nugget And for good reason: see Telephone Game. *BUT* it's still worth recording and still might tell us valuable things about the past as long as it is given proper context. We should be recording as much oral history as possible.

what first nacion's name?

How so?

@@J-vr7yy Multiple events in that year that had primary sources and most secondary sources rejected by Wikipedia as valid sources, with the pages on those events being so inaccurate anyone using them for a paper couldn't hope for an E or above even if reading through the linked articles. Also a line of political thinking was changed to be a conspiracy theory that's complete 1984 style "the facts of what happened don't matter" which is ironic since another page was made for the current politically correct name for what the previous one was that's basically just a complete copy-past of the old page because the dullards who run Wikipedia aren't smart enough to notice that the entire justification for changing that page was ironically the very type of nonsense they pretend isn't possible.

As someone who has invested hundreds of hours editing WP, I can also say that it really is an invalid source by itself, but rather, a general place to start with broad information and hopefully some real sources behind the information.

Always water your pasta when making salt

Always pasta your salt while making water

@@vincenttt8289 Always pasta your salt when making water

No point salting the water when you can just put salt on it when it's cooked. Do you salt the water when you when you make rice?

@@littleolliebenjy As an Italian: AAAAAARGH! There is a MASSIVE difference between salt in the water or on top. Do you make bread without salt because you can always add it on top? And yes, in many parts of the world rice is cooked in salted water.