phuckphace
August 5th, 2014, 08:59 PM
the more I read Wikipedia the more I notice how goofy a lot of its "editors" are. trying to find useful info about, say, the declension of a certain foreign word is hit-or-miss, but if I want to read 10 rambling paragraphs about an obscure anime series or nerd comic franchise, Wikipedia has it in abundance.
even some of the more well-written and sourced articles often have useless nerd trivia tacked on at the end. from the article on stratocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy):
Fictional stratocracies
Fullmetal Alchemist: The government of Amestris is an autocratic stratocracy under Fuhrer King Bradley, as the Amestrian state military performs all governmental functions and nearly all social functions. For instance: the military performs all necessary police activities, administers all regions of the nation as the effective government, alchemists bound to the military have sole access to many of the most advanced alchemical research materials, the constitutional position of head of state/head of government (the Fuhrer) is always the top general in the military, social and political advancement is almost impossible without a corresponding rise through the military ranks.
although Wikipedia has "notability" guidelines, their idea of "notable" apparently includes shitty anime series that 99.5% of people have never heard of or care about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anime :lol3:
the article on talking robots who save the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers) is considerably longer and more sourced than the article on the Schengen Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement), and the article on Lady Gaga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_gaga) is only slightly shorter than the one on the war in Kosovo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Feminism - you probably knew already that women can and do accomplish things, but are you exhaustively familiar with every single one of them? THANKS TO THE PATRIARCHY, PROBABLY NOT :lol3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_shaming)
The causes of weight stigma are complex, as many factors seem to play a role. For instance, the degree to which heavy people are stigmatized (or revered) is highly variable across cultures and historical periods. However, research on social stigma offers some clues.
:lol3: ah yes, the tantalizing mystery of why people who pathologically overindulge in unhealthy food are looked down upon in normal societies. we'd better consult a sociologist to help us unravel the clues!
the appeal of dead-tree encyclopedias has never been more obvious.
even some of the more well-written and sourced articles often have useless nerd trivia tacked on at the end. from the article on stratocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy):
Fictional stratocracies
Fullmetal Alchemist: The government of Amestris is an autocratic stratocracy under Fuhrer King Bradley, as the Amestrian state military performs all governmental functions and nearly all social functions. For instance: the military performs all necessary police activities, administers all regions of the nation as the effective government, alchemists bound to the military have sole access to many of the most advanced alchemical research materials, the constitutional position of head of state/head of government (the Fuhrer) is always the top general in the military, social and political advancement is almost impossible without a corresponding rise through the military ranks.
although Wikipedia has "notability" guidelines, their idea of "notable" apparently includes shitty anime series that 99.5% of people have never heard of or care about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anime :lol3:
the article on talking robots who save the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers) is considerably longer and more sourced than the article on the Schengen Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement), and the article on Lady Gaga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_gaga) is only slightly shorter than the one on the war in Kosovo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Feminism - you probably knew already that women can and do accomplish things, but are you exhaustively familiar with every single one of them? THANKS TO THE PATRIARCHY, PROBABLY NOT :lol3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_shaming)
The causes of weight stigma are complex, as many factors seem to play a role. For instance, the degree to which heavy people are stigmatized (or revered) is highly variable across cultures and historical periods. However, research on social stigma offers some clues.
:lol3: ah yes, the tantalizing mystery of why people who pathologically overindulge in unhealthy food are looked down upon in normal societies. we'd better consult a sociologist to help us unravel the clues!
the appeal of dead-tree encyclopedias has never been more obvious.