this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1069 points (90.6% liked)
Showerthoughts
29723 readers
1005 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Remember the prolific wikipedia contributor who had an extreme fascination with boobs?
Edit: It was a joke people. I wasn't being serious. But yeah, that did happen and there were articles about it for a while.
There's thousands of prolific Wikipedia contributors. Writing high quality articles takes a lot of time.
So no
It was reasonably big news when it was noticed, so it's not unreasonable that people might remember it. IIRC, the gist of it was one contributor that had historically contributed to a large number of articles added a redirect for every article with breast in the name so you could also access it by replacing breast with titty or boob, so for example, typing titty cancer into the search bar would bring you to the page for breast cancer.
Is that … bad?
Not really. It was amusing at worst probably. I was trying to be humorous when I mentioned it, but I guess a lot of people thought I was serious.
And many with extreme fascination for boobs.
Yeah I’m not buying it. Until I see some stats on the normal level of boob fascination I can’t conclude this guy was extreme
The Scots guy is a better example, imo. Someone who was trying to contribute in a positive manner but filled the wiki with complete gibberish, as opposed to a troll, of which there many.
How does that make his contributions wrong?
Gee I don’t know let’s have a look:
It’s getting out of hand I’d say
All of those are funny and obviously untrue. Using Wikipedia isn't a one stop perfect information system. Knowing how to use it comes with knowing how to use the sources.
Well Wikipedia is striving to be a perfect information system. So they don't belong there. There are better locations on the internet for those kinds of jokes.
So his contributions were wrong but now you're moving goalposts and saying they're funny and obviously wrong, so it's okay? WTF kind of standard is that lol