How one woman took on Wikipedia's Nazi fancruft

I love the concept of an unripe page on Wikipedia. Thank you for this little gift! It’s perfect - it tells me the page isn’t ready yet, and I should come back later.



At least some sources are banned.


Well, just look at George Soros! /s


Hey, I thought it was my turn to be Zsa Zsa on Mondays? Have they been fucking with the rota again? Honestly, I get enough rota-fucking at work, already.


Is it Monday??? Strange. something on this thread is making me feel like it’s a Wednesday…

ETA: and now it’s all gone! So good. Leaving this here, because I love Wednesday :heart:


Tut tut. You have several cases of improper punctuation there. Get thee to a nunnery!


If ONLY there was a way to politely alert the author of a grammar mistake in the article rather than derail the whole god damn thread! Sadly, one can’t @beschizza to let him know… Better to make the whole thread about the error in the snarkiest way possible.


I doubt you’ll get a direct response either…


Of course, if @beschizza did descend from the heavens to grace us with his presence…


Just kidding Rob… you know we love you and your safe best… we won’t tell the others… :wink:


Hmmmm. Know anyone else this has happened to?


That does the trick. She it is.


Schitts Creek Comedy GIF by CBC


My brother had this problem with details from brochures put out in the 1970’s by Toyota.

According to WP, he was not able to quote from the brochures as “they are a primary source and we don’t allow that”. So he created a web page that had the quotes he wanted, and THAT was allowed as the web page was considered a secondary source.

The whole “No primary sources” for something that purports to be the encyclopaedia of the future annoys me to no end.


He could scan the brochures and submit the images, but… sooner of later, someone would notice that images weren’t completely free and clear of copyright issues and delete them. (Fair use doesn’t cut it because commercial yobbos can repackage Wikipedia for profit, and for some reason those people have to be protected. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:)

The worst part is that image moderation is a completely different track from article editing, and there’s no mechanism for discussion, appeal, or even knowing what was removed after it’s gone.

When one of the idiot bots challenges an image, it doesn’t even notify the articles where it’s used, only the original uploader, who might be years gone. So suddenly poof, big gapping holes in an artcle without warning.

eta: I’d contributed a thumbnail scan of the last The Strategic Review cover before it changed to The Dragon (really it was Dragon #0 in the format of the future magazine). Over a decade later some automated bot complained that it wasn’t needed for the article and deleted it.


My lord this brings back memories… Not with Neo-Nazis, but similar stuff around Kamala Harris’ page, and a long struggle about people simply making stuff up about the number of deaths under Communism.

The Harris stuff got so bad, it got the attention of The Atlantic. The Wikipedia War Over Kamala Harris’s Race - The Atlantic

I submitted a picture to a Wikipedia article and about 10 years later it got auto deleted by one of those stupid bots. The reason was my picture violated copyright.

Open and shut, right? The problem was that it was a picture I took myself. I can produce the high-res original image (and numerous contemporaneous images).

Apparently, some company scraped my image from somewhere and they claimed copyright on it even though it was my original work. Never mind it first appeared on their website some 8 years after my original upload to Wikipedia, or that the EXIF timestamp is even older than that. Wikipedia’s bots now block my picture as a result.

Un-fucking believable.


Wikipedia has suffered an “infiltration” that sought to advance the aims of China, the US non-profit organisation that owns the volunteer-edited encyclopaedia has said.

The Wikimedia Foundation told BBC News the infiltration had threatened the “very foundations of Wikipedia”.

The foundation banned seven editors linked to a mainland China group.

Wikimedians of Mainland China accused the foundation of “baselessly slandering a small group of people”.

I bet I can make a stab at the company.

They provide an archiving/cataloging/stock image service for news organizations, journalists, photographers. Some client probably used your image from Wikimedia Commons in an article without crediting/tagging it properly, and their bot scooped it up along with the rest.

Or they’re just plain evil, and know that they can claim ownership the commons, and if ever called on it by someone with lawyers, then can say “Oops!” and drop their claim at no cost to them.



This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.