The best feature about Wikipedia is the ability to dig through the history of each article to see just how much woke activism has destroyed certain articles over the last 5-10 years.... I can see Wikipedia taking that ability away soon.
Slowly but surely from 2014 to 2021, this article went from one describing facts about a delusional 18th-century woman to an article VALIDATING that insane delusion. Notice they even cropped the drawing of her to remove her real birth name.
And that change is a perfect illustration of a common trend among a lot of articles these days - virtually all of the "citations" come from 2 obscure books, one from 2009 and one from 2015. A handful of "academics" write a book or paper or something about their pet insanity, and suddenly it becomes "noteworthy" and the articles get updated.
The best feature about Wikipedia is the ability to dig through the history of each article to see just how much woke activism has destroyed certain articles over the last 5-10 years.... I can see Wikipedia taking that ability away soon.
It should also be noted that if they delete a page, the history gets deleted with it. It doesn't matter if the page only had a single edit to create it and is nothing but spam or if it had hundreds of edits; once they delete it, it's all gone.
http://deletionpedia.org/en/Main_Page sometimes the deleted pages can show up here and sites like it its mostly automated but the history is gone sadly sometimes a page is still on infogalatic that wikipedia decided to get rid of too
cropped the drawing of her to remove her real birth name.
Jesus Christ lol.
I like how the death and legacy section mentions a "Jemima weed" named after her. Someone who never read the old page would have no idea why, there's zero mention of the name of the page other than that. (well, apparently they can't censor the sources yet)
Yeah, it's gotten a little less insane lately... but such are the ebbs and flows of woke insanity. Give it another year and it'll probably be just as bad or worse as it was in 2020 again.
Who'd have known that we'd be scrubbing the name of two Jemimas in the name of wokeness in 2020? lol
Often good to make a habit of looking up original meanings of words with a Webster's 1828 Dictionary before they started changing the definitions. Hard copies are $50-$60 on Ebay.
Sample:
VAC'CINE, adjective [Latin vaccinus, from vacca, a cow.]
Pertaining to cows; originating with or derived from cows; as the vaccine disease or cow-pox.
A lot of words have been changed within the last decade or two, and they use it as a way to control information and steer ideas into their frame of thinking. It's extremely important to maintain control of words, and the suggestion of the older Webster dictionary is invaluable.
Wikipedia used to be dominated by nerds. So much that they had to delete a bunch of articles that were "fancruft" (i.e. someone would make a wiki page about some character from the Star Wars novels). Then it got more professional, but at its core it was still nerds.
It was always left-leaning, but in the last five or six years it's gone off the deep-end. Every article that somehow relates to race or gender sounds like it was written by someone with 3 liberal arts degrees and $200,000 in student debt.
My favorite is how every reference to a black person as a "slave" has been replaced by "enslaved person." "Slave owners" are now "enslavers" or "slavers." Which makes no sense, because those terms used to mean someone who captured or procured slaves (i.e. "Kuante Kinte was captured by Mandika and English slavers."). Of course, this doesn't apply to white slaves. Spartacus is still described as a "slave" still, as are the "Chistian slaves" liberated in the Barbary Wars.
Their neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which was the cornerstone of Wikipedia when I started reading it in 2003 or so basically means now that not all points of view are equal.
And they even have a "deadnaming" policy now, too. If you aren't familiar with the lastest SJW lingo, if someone who is born a man decides to call himself a woman and changes his name, if you refer to him by his old name, you are deadnaming him. Wikipedia's deadnaming policy now is that you shouldn't mention someone's birth name unless they were well known before they transitioned (i.e. Bruce Jenner).
Wikipedia claims to have a no censorship policy and also claims to be an encyclopedia, but they deliberately omit information. It's kind of like how after George Floyd (PBUH) Ascended into Heaven, newspapers and wire agencies like the AP decided to stop showing mugshots of criminals and to stop printing the names of people arrested for misdemeanors. Of course, it's completely fine to doxx people who get into an argument in public with a black person.
I was watching Hulu and an Amazon commercial came on. The plot was two Nigerian immigrant lesbians falling in love during quarantine. After that was an Audi commercial with a black danger hair dyke driving said car. And then a Nintendo commercial with gay dads. I wanted to puke.
They always insert blacks into the most improbable situations: financial advisor, Dad, lawn mower, home maintainer, fitness guru, and museum goer are all a few that I've seen recently.
I remember seeing some survey done in Asia that from our media people there were under the impression America was at least 40% black or something, and that was years ago.
It's Galloop's and they do it once few years. Same for alphabet people percentage estimates. They also chronicle the skyrocketing rise of alphabet self identifications, especially among the new generations (and they only poll the adults).
It's is often written by the the "feminist edit-o-trons" (or something like that, don't remember this idiotic name), the PAID events being often organized by the Wikimedia Foundation for many years.
Just over the past few years the articles on historical events have been woke-ified, so that most articles have a woke coda that explains the correct way to understand and interpret the historical event so that you are safely with the parameters of contemporary ideology.
The best feature about Wikipedia is the ability to dig through the history of each article to see just how much woke activism has destroyed certain articles over the last 5-10 years.... I can see Wikipedia taking that ability away soon.
Best example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Universal_Friend&oldid=985462160 (2020 version)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Universal_Friend&oldid=594585082 (2014 version)
Slowly but surely from 2014 to 2021, this article went from one describing facts about a delusional 18th-century woman to an article VALIDATING that insane delusion. Notice they even cropped the drawing of her to remove her real birth name.
And that change is a perfect illustration of a common trend among a lot of articles these days - virtually all of the "citations" come from 2 obscure books, one from 2009 and one from 2015. A handful of "academics" write a book or paper or something about their pet insanity, and suddenly it becomes "noteworthy" and the articles get updated.
It should also be noted that if they delete a page, the history gets deleted with it. It doesn't matter if the page only had a single edit to create it and is nothing but spam or if it had hundreds of edits; once they delete it, it's all gone.
http://deletionpedia.org/en/Main_Page sometimes the deleted pages can show up here and sites like it its mostly automated but the history is gone sadly sometimes a page is still on infogalatic that wikipedia decided to get rid of too
Holy shit, they don't even have her real name now. Or, a literal "deadname".
Jemima Wilkinson was her name.
Jesus Christ lol.
I like how the death and legacy section mentions a "Jemima weed" named after her. Someone who never read the old page would have no idea why, there's zero mention of the name of the page other than that. (well, apparently they can't censor the sources yet)
Looks like the latest verision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Universal_Friend at least has (Born as Jemima Wilkinson) after her new uh... title? Still has the Stalin-esque cropped portrait.
Yeah, it's gotten a little less insane lately... but such are the ebbs and flows of woke insanity. Give it another year and it'll probably be just as bad or worse as it was in 2020 again.
Who'd have known that we'd be scrubbing the name of two Jemimas in the name of wokeness in 2020? lol
jesus christ
magnet for the 40 gig 2014 version. One seeder. Tsk tsk:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:61F632F4CB02F2D02D290FFC50D6F80A2398A13A
Let me try making that a clickable link
That didn't work. BOO! Fuck you kia software.
noob question but where do I paste it?
Into your bittorrent client of choice.
Tixati is free, without spammy advertisement, no spyware and Windows/Linux compatible.
select it all and paste it into a web browser. If you have a torrent client installed it will open up. Or just paste directly into torrent client.
Often good to make a habit of looking up original meanings of words with a Webster's 1828 Dictionary before they started changing the definitions. Hard copies are $50-$60 on Ebay.
Sample:
VAC'CINE, adjective [Latin vaccinus, from vacca, a cow.]
Pertaining to cows; originating with or derived from cows; as the vaccine disease or cow-pox.
This.
A lot of words have been changed within the last decade or two, and they use it as a way to control information and steer ideas into their frame of thinking. It's extremely important to maintain control of words, and the suggestion of the older Webster dictionary is invaluable.
1950s might be too late. Commies were running things like unions as early as the '30s
Wikipedia used to be dominated by nerds. So much that they had to delete a bunch of articles that were "fancruft" (i.e. someone would make a wiki page about some character from the Star Wars novels). Then it got more professional, but at its core it was still nerds.
It was always left-leaning, but in the last five or six years it's gone off the deep-end. Every article that somehow relates to race or gender sounds like it was written by someone with 3 liberal arts degrees and $200,000 in student debt.
My favorite is how every reference to a black person as a "slave" has been replaced by "enslaved person." "Slave owners" are now "enslavers" or "slavers." Which makes no sense, because those terms used to mean someone who captured or procured slaves (i.e. "Kuante Kinte was captured by Mandika and English slavers."). Of course, this doesn't apply to white slaves. Spartacus is still described as a "slave" still, as are the "Chistian slaves" liberated in the Barbary Wars.
Their neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which was the cornerstone of Wikipedia when I started reading it in 2003 or so basically means now that not all points of view are equal.
And they even have a "deadnaming" policy now, too. If you aren't familiar with the lastest SJW lingo, if someone who is born a man decides to call himself a woman and changes his name, if you refer to him by his old name, you are deadnaming him. Wikipedia's deadnaming policy now is that you shouldn't mention someone's birth name unless they were well known before they transitioned (i.e. Bruce Jenner).
Wikipedia claims to have a no censorship policy and also claims to be an encyclopedia, but they deliberately omit information. It's kind of like how after George Floyd (PBUH) Ascended into Heaven, newspapers and wire agencies like the AP decided to stop showing mugshots of criminals and to stop printing the names of people arrested for misdemeanors. Of course, it's completely fine to doxx people who get into an argument in public with a black person.
I was watching Hulu and an Amazon commercial came on. The plot was two Nigerian immigrant lesbians falling in love during quarantine. After that was an Audi commercial with a black danger hair dyke driving said car. And then a Nintendo commercial with gay dads. I wanted to puke.
"Are you sure this will help us sell burgers?"
They always insert blacks into the most improbable situations: financial advisor, Dad, lawn mower, home maintainer, fitness guru, and museum goer are all a few that I've seen recently.
I remember seeing some survey done in Asia that from our media people there were under the impression America was at least 40% black or something, and that was years ago.
They should do a similar survey and ask people in Asia what percentage of Americans they think are gay.
It was a survey done in America actually.
It's Galloop's and they do it once few years. Same for alphabet people percentage estimates. They also chronicle the skyrocketing rise of alphabet self identifications, especially among the new generations (and they only poll the adults).
It's is often written by the the "feminist edit-o-trons" (or something like that, don't remember this idiotic name), the PAID events being often organized by the Wikimedia Foundation for many years.
That's about $5 of USB storage at this point.
Or $1 if you'd prefer to give your money directly to the chinks rather than giving $4 to a distributor and the tax man.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
Is supposedly a clone of wikipedia without the leftist bent.
Curiously it doesn't have the Public Universal Friend page... https://infogalactic.com/info/Public_Universal_Friend
But it knows about her... https://infogalactic.com/info/David_Hudson_(New_York_politician)
Do you have a link or name for such an extension?
Just over the past few years the articles on historical events have been woke-ified, so that most articles have a woke coda that explains the correct way to understand and interpret the historical event so that you are safely with the parameters of contemporary ideology.