/b/ - Random

Anything goes.

[Make a Post]
[X]





Can someone fix the 8gag wikipedia entry? Nanonymous No.2012 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>2013
File: c7b91e103feb2f498246686888664abe47ac2055f4d9ffb1c0c3a288a0580908.png (dl) (1.71 MiB)
8gag user for 4 years here. Can someone fix this bullshit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan
It needs to be rewritten from a NPOV. I would do it but it blocks my IP. I'm just trying to find news about 8chan whether it's coming back but instead I get this garbage.
>As with unaffiliated imageboard 4chan, the site is linked to the alt-right, racism and anti-Semitism, hate crimes, and multiple mass shootings.[4][5][6]
Yes, in the same way Facebook is """linked to""" ISIS terrorist attacks. The current way the article is written, makes it sound like if I browsed 8chan, I will be placed on a terrorists watchlist.
>The site is also known for its presence of child pornography,[7] and as a result, it was filtered out from Google Search.[8]
It had no presence of CP, because that was against the rules, because US law says no CP. And the mods were autist retards who actually sit there 24/7 to make sure they delete CP as soon as possible. Nor was it ever even "known" for presence of CP. Also, [7] is not a valid cite.

Nanonymous No.2013 [D] >>2015
>>2012
>I'm just trying to find news about 8chan whether it's coming back but instead I get this garbage.
The current status of 8chan is that it is going to be down until they have built there own DDOS mitigation infrastructure. There is currently no ETA for when that will be done.

Nanonymous No.2014 [D] >>2017
Why do you care about normie media

Nanonymous No.2015 [D]
>>2013
Why can't they use Bitmitigate?
Didn't they come back online?

Nanonymous No.2016 [D]
Their gonna ban Tor anyway though, so fuck them.

Nanonymous No.2017 [D] >>2019
>>2014
go back to /pol/ faggot. wikipedia actually has a lot of decent articles

Nanonymous No.2019 [D] >>2020 >>2022
>>2017
Name one

Nanonymous No.2020 [D] >>2024
>>2019

Wasup last year, it is me, 2020!

Nanonymous No.2022 [D] >>2024 >>2040
>>2019
just click the random article button 10 times. most likely, 9 of them will be good articles. wikipedia has the highest content quality of all websites. it will probably be killed soon but whatever, the web is dead anyway. the /pol/ meme on the other hand, is that wikipedia is "fake" because (naturally) most of the articles on world history state facts contrary to /pol/'s narratives

Nanonymous No.2024 [D] >>2039 >>2182
>>2020
Who wins the Great Battle oni chan?
>>2022
wow Scotland's cricket history. exciting

Nanonymous No.2039 [D]
>>2024
You tell me, you're in 2024.
Wait, shit, that means im ahead. WTF

Nanonymous No.2040 [D][U][F] >>2182
File: 3b1f060ba70658fc758dc599fdbeaed7c2be6c049812042758612db87d43290e.png (dl) (414.39 KiB)
>>2022
>being this jidf

Nanonymous No.2103 [D] >>2182
Wikipedia articles represent a specific point of view. When you read them, you know you are reading a biased article, like something from the Soviet Encyclopedia, which also had scientific value but was obviously biased.

Nanonymous No.2182 [D]
>>2024
It's not supposed to be exciting you dumbfuck nigger, it's supposed to be factually correct.
>>2040
kys if not trolling
>>2103
then fix it

Nanonymous No.2694 [D]
>fix it
Articles are run like small fiefdoms. Controversial articles (and often controversial topics) are micro-managed by editors/admins who try to maintain the status-quo. Getting your edits through takes a lot of often futile effort. And the people you would be going up against often have a lot more Wiki experience/connections than you do.

It's like that saying that it takes monumentally more effort to refute bullshit than to produce it.

Start your own wiki instead.

Nanonymous No.2728 [D]
Why would you want to change it? It scares off the faggots. Its objectively better that way