{"id":1991,"date":"2010-06-18T20:32:02","date_gmt":"2010-06-19T03:32:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bspcn.com\/?p=1991"},"modified":"2010-06-18T20:32:02","modified_gmt":"2010-06-19T03:32:02","slug":"6-ridiculous-arguments-that-actually-happened-on-wikipedia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/2010\/06\/18\/6-ridiculous-arguments-that-actually-happened-on-wikipedia\/","title":{"rendered":"6 Ridiculous Arguments That Actually Happened on Wikipedia"},"content":{"rendered":"

Written by Adam Tod Brown<\/a><\/p>\n

\"wikipedia<\/p>\n

Over the years, Wikipedia has actually morphed into a somewhat useful source of information.\u00a0 Sure, anyone can edit it, but the people who do usually go to great lengths to make sure the information provided is as accurate and neutral as possible.<\/p>\n

But every once in awhile, some random maniac swoops in and tries to bring all of that thoughtful discussion and hard work crashing down in a big heaping wreck of crazy.\u00a0 You would think that when it happens, people would just dismiss it as the ravings of an internet lunatic.\u00a0 But you would be wrong.<\/p>\n

Why Does Everyone In The Matrix Wear Black Clothes and Sunglasses?<\/h4>\n

\"matrix<\/p>\n

It should come as no surprise that the Wikipedia entry for The Matrix<\/em> is a hotbed for heated discussions.\u00a0 Nerds do love to bicker.\u00a0 The discussions on the Matrix<\/em> page veer wildly between valid (no, The Matrix<\/em> isn\u2019t a retelling of the story of Jesus<\/a>) and shit nobody in their right mind should ever care about (why does \u201cThere is no spoon\u201d redirect here?<\/a>).<\/p>\n

That\u2019s to be expected.\u00a0 Those aren\u2019t the kind of discussions that are ever going to finally free you from the shackles of virginity, but as they relate to the movie, why not bring it up?\u00a0 But in March of 2007, a Wikipedia user named Ratso<\/a> dropped this bomb on the discussion.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy do all the characters wear black clothes and sunglasses? That seems to be the stereotype but there doesn\u2019t seem to be much of an explanation why.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Rather than shut this down with a swift and logical \u201cbecause that shit looks awesome\u201d the editorial community jumped into action, offering up various theories and fiercely debating whether actually unlocking this treasure chest of wisdom would benefit the research community.\u00a0 (Hint \u2013 it would not.)<\/p>\n

The Debate Begins<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cPlease do not use Wikipedia as a forum for subjects other than improving the article.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

If we could sign our John Hancock somewhere to show our wholehearted support for this position, we damn sure would.\u00a0 Actually, we probably can, but it would undoubtedly be deemed Wikipedia vandalism or something, like that time we edited our own Wikipedia page to suggest that the entire editorial and writing staff have gigantic cocks.\u00a0 Even the chicks.\u00a0 Sometimes the internet just can\u2019t handle the truth.<\/p>\n

\"huge<\/p>\n

Assistant fashion editor Rico O’Shaugnessy and his gigantic cock<\/p>\n

At any rate, in a perfect world, the discussion would have ended here.<\/p>\n

The Debate Continues<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cActually, if we could find out the answer to Ratso\u2019s question, it could be added into the article \u2013 thus improving the article. Sometimes discussion helps, you know.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

If ever there is an award given for the internet community with the most free time on its hands, Wikipedia will win it hands down.\u00a0 While those among us who aren\u2019t physically chained to our keyboards would blow a question like this off without a second thought, apparently, someone is going to try and tackle it.\u00a0 What will they find?<\/p>\n

The Debate Gets Ridiculous<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cAll the characters wear sunnies and black leather trenchcoats because while in the Matrix they appear as they want to appear\/see themselves ideally; alot cooler\/suaver than in the real world. It just so happens that these revolutionaries Neo, Trinity, Morpheus could really identify with the psycho kids from Colombine.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Yeah?\u00a0 They could relate to the Columbine shooters?\u00a0 Could they also see into the future?\u00a0 Because the Columbine shootings happened in April of 1999.\u00a0 The Matrix, on the other hand, was released in March of 1999.<\/p>\n

The Verdict<\/strong><\/p>\n

Edit not allowed.\u00a0 As of today, the world is still in the dark as to why the characters in the Matrix wear black.\u00a0 Someday, some brave Wikipedia editor may come along with the information we need.\u00a0 And we shall call him\u2026The One.<\/p>\n

How Many Pictures of Oprah Winfrey Are Too Many?<\/h4>\n

\"oprah<\/p>\n

There is something to be said for stubbornness.\u00a0 Where would we be as a society if Rosa Parks just went ahead and gave up her seat or if that guy in Tiananmen Square just moved out of the way of those tanks?\u00a0 Similarly, where would we be if Wikipedia user Cardriver didn\u2019t leave everything on the floor during the fierce battle to defend her right to upload seven pictures of Oprah Winfrey to Wikipedia?<\/p>\n

\"rosa<\/p>\n

Probably a bad analogy<\/p>\n

The shit hit the fan on July 4th, 2006 when the Oprah Winfrey page\u2019s nomination for Good Article status failed<\/a>.\u00a0 We have no idea what that means.\u00a0 But we do know the reason it failed was because there were too many images included on the page.\u00a0 Eight pictures, to be exact.\u00a0 The user who uploaded those pictures, Cardriver, did not take this news well.<\/p>\n

\u201cI couldn\u2019t disagree more. Any good encyclopedia should include as many relevant photographs as possible because photos communicate information far more efficiently than language can. Haven\u2019t you heard the expression \u201ca picture\u2019s worth a thousand words?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Really?\u00a0 Photos communicate information far more efficiently than language can?\u00a0 Then riddle us this, after seeing this picture, would you feel comfortable hopping into a van with this man, or would you need a little more information first, perhaps of the spoken kind?<\/p>\n

\"cat<\/p>\n

The Debate Begins<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cActually, any good encyclopedia should strive to describe a topic in brilliant prose rather than relying on copyright violations. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but that doesn\u2019t give us the right to use pictures that don\u2019t belong to us.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

You would think this would have ended things.\u00a0 Basically, the photos in question are copyrighted and therefore can\u2019t be used no matter how relevant they may be.\u00a0 No matter.\u00a0 Cardriver is just getting warmed up.<\/p>\n

The Debate Continues<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cComparing the edits made by you to those of Vexel and Zorklift, it\u2019s a little obvious you\u2019re just another sock puppet (duplicate account) of Cardriver. Please stop wasting everyone\u2019s (and your own) time.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

At this point, Cardriver has fought her way through copyright infringement claims and is now being outed as having set up duplicate accounts to make it appear as if there were people arguing on her behalf.\u00a0 She can\u2019t possibly top that, can she?<\/p>\n

The Debate Gets Ridiculous<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, she can.\u00a0 First, how about suggesting that those who would conspire to keep photos of Oprah off of Wikipedia are engaging in age discrimination?<\/p>\n

\u201cA bunch of us are very elderly so we\u2019re new to this whole wikipedia thing. I really feel as though we\u2019re being picked on by more experienced users of the technological age. I would really hate to think that any administrators of such a wonderful place as wikipedia would be abusing their power. When I first arrived at Wikipedia I loved it and found everyone welcoming, but once I incorrectly uploaded some beautiful Oprah photos people have been not at all helpful. I\u2019ve really never felt so bullied in my life. Please show some compassion.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

If that doesn\u2019t work, there\u2019s always the time tested racism argument.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy is it okay for a white male like Bill Clinton to have 18 photos but a black female like Oprah is having trouble getting only 8?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\"public<\/p>\n

Fight the Power, Cardriver!<\/p>\n

The Verdict<\/strong><\/p>\n

Shockingly, all of that campaigning eventually paid off.\u00a0 A compromise was reached and four of the eight contentious images were included in the article.\u00a0 Let this be a lesson, never give up on your dreams, kids.<\/p>\n

What Does \u201cGay Icon\u201d Mean Again?<\/h4>\n

\"eminem<\/p>\n

Obviously, Wikipedia vandalism is nothing new.\u00a0 You leave an entire repository of information open to be edited by the public and inevitably someone is going to use it to imply that the lead singer of Nickelback enjoys dong.<\/p>\n

\"wikipedia2<\/p>\n

Or do this<\/p>\n

But when this happens, it\u2019s mandatory that the Wikipedia community pauses for a second before haphazardly tossing the vandalism label around.\u00a0 Because it could just be that the person editing the page is a dumbass.<\/p>\n

Take what happened when an anonymous user tried to edit Eminem\u2019s Wikipedia page<\/a> to add him to the \u201cgay icon\u201d category.\u00a0 That seems like some pretty blatant vandalism, but when you listen to the explanation behind it, you quickly realize that it\u2019s not vandalism at all.\u00a0 It\u2019s just that this guy has no idea what \u201cgay icon\u201d means.<\/p>\n

The Debate Begins<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe \u201cgay icon\u201d category isn\u2019t exclusive to public figures who ARE gay. It\u2019s for anyone who has had any kind of notoriety with gay audiences.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Wow, by those standards, the guy who runs the Westboro Baptist Church is a gay icon.<\/p>\n

\"westboro<\/p>\n

The Debate Continues<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cSo gays don\u2019t like him and that makes him a gay icon? Look up icon first.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The Debate Gets Ridiculous<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWould it be too much trouble to ask you to get an account so we know what to call you?\u201d<\/p>\n

Really?\u00a0 You really want to go down this path, Wikipedia?\u00a0 In situations like this, it\u2019s best to just call them stupid and move on.<\/p>\n

The Verdict<\/strong><\/p>\n

Do we really need to tell you?\u00a0 Edit not allowed.<\/p>\n

Argument about Whether the Gremlins Are Racist Seems Kind of Racist<\/h4>\n

\"gremlins<\/p>\n

When discussing matters of race, it\u2019s important that you not somehow come off as a racist yourself.\u00a0 You know, unless you\u2019re discussing how you totally believe that your race is superior to another, in which case, by all means, get your bigot on.\u00a0 But otherwise, you have to tread carefully.<\/p>\n

Take the case of Wikipedia user Deeceevoice<\/a>, for example.\u00a0 In September of 2006 they took to the discussion page for the movie Gremlins<\/em> to question why the information they added about the Gremlins<\/em> being racist was removed.\u00a0 Keep in mind, they weren\u2019t referring to the Asian shopkeeper who initially sold Gizmo.\u00a0 That was the most racist shit ever and everyone knows it.\u00a0 But instead, this was Deeceevoice\u2019s beef\u2026<\/p>\n

The Debate Begins<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe creatures exhibit some of the worst sterotypical behavior attributed to blacks. They are wild, drunken, carousing, violent, murderous, seductive, lascivious, crude and rowdy. The females are depicted with big, red lips.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Jamie<\/p>\n

Like this?<\/p>\n

Yep, that sounds just like the kind of vitriol our racist uncle Smiley used to spout at family gatherings back in the day.\u00a0 \u201cStay away from black people, they\u2019re seductive!\u201d\u00a0 Roger that, crazy uncle Smiley.<\/p>\n

After another user wisely points out that this is a retarded argument, Deeceevoice digs in even deeper by pointing out that the Gremlins were also breakdancing and acted \u201ccool\u201d so, obviously, they were intended to be black.\u00a0 Duh!<\/p>\n

The Debate Continues<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cYou can claim that small green rubber toys with inhuman features represent an attack on black people if you want, just because they wear sunglasses and breakdance, but in order to do this you\u2019d have to believe that no one else wears sunglasses or breakdances.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The Debate Gets Ridiculous<\/strong><\/p>\n

After someone makes an almost equally ridiculous claim that the bar scene in question was meant to highlight the \u201ccorrupt elite,\u201d you know, as opposed to just showing a bunch of fucking Gremlins acting up, Deeceevoice comes back with this\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cThe \u201ccorrupt elite\u201d would not be in what amounted to a sleazy jukejoint atmosphere with gangsta types and low lifes. Next time (if there is a next time) you happen to see the film check it out. Then ask yourself, \u201cIf the creators of the scene wanted to depict some redneck hick gremlins, would they have done the drinking and carousing scenes in the same way, with the same music, the same clothes, the same physical characterstics \u2014 or, would they have done it differfently?\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

There is but one obvious answer to this question.\u00a0 That answer, of course, is \u201cshut the fuck up.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Verdict<\/strong><\/p>\n

Edit allowed!\u00a0 Turns out, one person did actually make a claim that the Gremlins were racist in a book called Ceramic Uncles & Celluloid Mammies.\u00a0 Well, shit, they must be racist then!\u00a0 For the record, if anyone is currently in the Wikipedia editing business, we\u2019ve always kind of thought Maxim magazine was pretty racist.\u00a0 Feel free to cite this article if you need to back up that claim.<\/p>\n

Michael Jackson: The King of\u2026Ghana?<\/h4>\n

\"michael<\/p>\n

During his long, illustrious career, Michael Jackson accomplished a lot of things.\u00a0 Grammy Awards, American Music Awards, Billboard Awards, Lifetime Achievement Awards, Honorary King of Ghana.<\/p>\n

Wait, what?\u00a0 Is that last one real?\u00a0 If Wikipedia user Street Walker<\/a> is to be believed, not only is it real, but, like, everybody knows about it.\u00a0 Well, color us ignorant, Street Walker!\u00a0 Please, do explain!<\/p>\n

The Debate Begins<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cMichael Jackson is the honorary King of Ghana and member of the Bafokeng Ka Bakwena tribe in Phokeng. This is common knowledge, but because wiki requires sources for all its info (except for anything that makes Michael Jackson look bad, that doesn\u2019t need citing apparently) I did a Google search and found this page<\/a> that contains the info.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In case you didn\u2019t bother clicking on the link that leads to the source of the eye opening information, let\u2019s just say it\u2019s not the kind of authoritative source you would turn to when putting together your college thesis.<\/p>\n

In fact, we showed that website to a Geocities website and the Geocities site said \u201chey, asshole, 1997 called and said they want their HTML back!\u201d\u00a0 Oh Geocities, lame jokes like that are the reason you got shut down.<\/p>\n

The Debate Continues<\/strong><\/p>\n

After the information was removed, Street Walker ups the absurdity levels to new heights with this head scratching argument.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you go to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom you\u2019ll see that after her naem and DOB is says \u201cQueen regnant of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland\u201d and the long list of countries she rules. So why should Michael Jackson be any different? It\u2019s part of his official title, Michael Joseph Jackson honorary King of Ghana.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

We have absolutely no words for this argument.\u00a0 None.\u00a0 But another Wikipedia user summed it up better than we ever could have.<\/p>\n

\u201cErr, Elizabeth isn\u2019t the honorary Queen of England, she is the Queen of England.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The Debate Gets Ridiculous<\/strong><\/p>\n

After finally giving up on the King of Ghana angle, Street Walker talks a hard left down Insanity Avenue by instead asking that the nickname \u201cWacko Jacko\u201d be removed from the Wikipedia page entirely.<\/p>\n

\u201cWacko Jacko is a derogatory term used to insult Michael Jackson. It is just as insulting as the \u2018n\u2019 word is to black people.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Also insulting \u2013 implying that Wacko Jacko is as insulting as the \u2018n\u2019 word.<\/p>\n

The Verdict<\/strong><\/p>\n

King of Ghana is out, Wacko Jacko stays.\u00a0 And the world is again as it should be.<\/p>\n

Is Adopting a Black Sheep on Farmville Stereotyping?<\/h4>\n

\"farmville<\/p>\n

In the annals of backwards thinking, this argument could go down as the most heinous example of all time.\u00a0 First, get it from the horse\u2019s mouth, Wikipedia user Psilocyberite<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The Debate Begins<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIn farmville, one can only adopt a \u201cblack sheep\u201d, which is lost and lonely, as opposed to purchase it from the market. While the idiom \u201cblack sheep\u201d has lost some of its negative connotation in modern usage, the idea of adopting it and giving it a shelter could qualify as an example of stereotyping, and a discussion could be initiated about the same.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In case you\u2019re too busy tending to your head which is quite likely spinning uncontrollably from the inherent stupidity you\u2019ve just read to really comprehend what is happening here, basically, someone is suggesting that because you can only adopt a black sheep on Farmville and not outright buy it, that is somehow stereotyping.\u00a0 Makes sense, provided this is some kind of backhanded endorsement of slavery or something.\u00a0 Honestly, coming from Facebook, nothing would surprise us.<\/p>\n

\"facebook<\/p>\n

The Debate Continues<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cSterotyping? That is totally idiotic. If someone thinks the term \u201cblack sheep\u201d is racial sterotyping, then they are just entirely too sensitive and probably need to get out of the house more often.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The Debate Gets Ridiculous<\/strong><\/p>\n

Before we get to the responses that actually pertain to this argument, can anyone tell us what the hell this is supposed to mean?<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy lost&lonely animals are rated so? Me and my friends are founding often ducklings, black sheeps and brown cows are both rare.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Right, we didn\u2019t think so.\u00a0 At any rate, proving that no point is too absurd for the Wikipedia crowd to debate, there was this\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cStereotyping\u201d is not automatically \u201cracial sterotyping\u201d. Spare us this hyper-PC nonsense, and stick to actual pro- and contra-arguments, e.g. that there is no obvious reason why an article on FarmVille should deal with either stereotyping or black sheeps.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

We\u2019d like to point out that all spellings of the word \u201cstereotyping\u201d in italics are the work of their respective authors.<\/p>\n

The Verdict<\/strong><\/p>\n

Further proving that Facebook is a full on haven of evil and corruption, to this day, no mention of the abhorrent treatment of black sheep on Farmville can be found on the Wikipedia page.\u00a0 No justice, no peace, Facebook.\u00a0 We shall overcome.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Written by Adam Tod Brown Over the years, Wikipedia has actually morphed into a somewhat useful source of information.\u00a0 Sure, anyone can edit it, but the people who do usually go to great lengths to make sure the information provided is as accurate and neutral as possible. But every once in awhile, some random maniac […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1991"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1991"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1991\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1992,"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1991\/revisions\/1992"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}