WrestleMania was running wild on you
-
Ozzy Osbourne's death was first announced to UK media, first article i could find came from the BBC and released 8:11pm
how is it that a Wikipedia editor outsprinted the first article and made the first death edit at 8:08pm?
Some of it's going to be down to a major news org like the BBC being much more careful to make sure he's really dead. With Wikipedia, that's a fuck-up, but almost anyone can make it, and it can easily be undone. With the BBC, that kind of fuck-up would haunt them for years. I've also read that Sky News may have been the first to confirm his death. Looking at that edit, the editor didn't mention a source; they just "was"d him. Bad practice by Wikipedia's standards but worked out in the end.
I think it's a point of pride that we can be so up-to-date, but as a tertiary source, we rely on the credibility of secondary sources like the BBC to have any semblance of usability and order. I think we're running different races, and we couldn't run ours if they didn't run theirs.
-
In any of these “Nobody: “ memes you can crop that line and it changes very little. It’s a shit format imo.
There are so many bad meme usages now I just want to let the world burn because I’ll be dead soon.
-
The fuck does “nobody” add to this?
Hijacking top comment to add this relevant information:
-
How do you feel about the Foundation using most of the money on things that are Wikipedia and then making highly misleading statements when they do fundraising drives on Wikipedia?
most of the money on things that are Wikipedia
Assuming you meant "aren't Wikipedia", there are a few aspects to this.
- These are the Wikimedia Foundation's 2024 financial statements.
- You can see how it's organized here.
- Here's a table of salaries. CEO Katherine Maher's salary is about $790,000, which is very average for this role. Other salaries look average as well.
- I permanently hide donation drive banners in my preferences and so can't speak to how they've been lately (read: last 8-ish years). I remember them being terrible. Genuinely hated them.
- Wikimedia is a lot bigger than just the English Wikipedia; it's a movement, and one that's been highly successful in a way it couldn't have been just through volunteer work. For example, I heavily encourage you to check out Wikipedia's sister projects sometime. Not all of them are created equal, but Wiktionary for example to me is the best single dictionary in the world. I wish many of these received similar levels of appreciation to Wikipedia. And far from being tacked-on side projects, most of these factor into a coherent ecosystem in their own way.
- The WMF's legal team in my eyes especially has been phenomenal. The movement I volunteer so many hours for would be heavily fractured and probably dead in the water if it weren't for them.
- On top of obvious things like developing MediaWiki, I actively want the WMF to be doing outreach through programs like grants. If the WMF just sits by and coasts on hosting costs and maybe MediaWiki bug fixes, it will die. Figuring out how to make editing more inviting, more accessible, and more efficient is crucial not just to keeping Wikipedia alive but its sister projects and even to improving other non-WMF wikis.
In summary, I don't like the banners but have seen zero issue with how they handle finances. The money donated that's used beyond maintaining a skeleton crew and keeping the lights on is profoundly useful to me as an editor and directly helps me write the articles that the people donating expect their money to go to.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
There are a few famous anti abortion people that "cancelled" or "abandoned" some business or other thing. I'll sometimes edit it to say, "aborted".
-
Sorry for a second I confused sunshine and beaver and was gonna argue with you lol. I just remember you made a very sane first mod post there or I would have just blocked the community.
you didn't confuse them. it's the same person.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It took approximately an hour after Ozzy Osbourne died for every single Black Sabbath video on YouTube to be inundated with "R.I.P. Ozzy" comments.
-
originally it was supposed to mean something being said or done unprompted. most people use it wrong so it doesn't make sense. here for example, the prompt is in the caption. someone died. that's the prompt. the use of was follows it logically.
the proper use of the meme would be something like:
Nobody:
Stephen King:
because he just says that shit unprompted, no one asks him about it, no one accuses or even suspects him being involved and suddenly, after years of criticizing orange mussolini, this happens to be the one time he supports him. that justifies the "nobody:" imo.
Good point, but it’s still an annoying meme format because of the nonsensical double negative on nobody saying nothing.
I know I’m alone on this hill, but I’ll die here.
-
Why are they bending back like that?
wrote last edited by [email protected]It’s a quick-draw stance to minimize motion, I believe.
-
In any of these “Nobody: “ memes you can crop that line and it changes very little. It’s a shit format imo.
Nobody:
Nobody at all:
Not one person in the history of the universe:
This guy: Stop adding unnecessary lines.
-
Good point, but it’s still an annoying meme format because of the nonsensical double negative on nobody saying nothing.
I know I’m alone on this hill, but I’ll die here.
you're not alone at all... but double negatives are valid in many languages and English dialects.
-
Sometimes you'd think so. It's actually more delayed than you'd think; major celebrities are often several minutes between major article publication and edit, when theoretically you could speedrun that kind of edit with a source in about two minutes from time of reading the article.
You might've seen this, but the editor who changed Henry Kissinger to "was" became such a social media phenomenon that day that her talk page was flooded with "congratulations". An administrator (being responsible, tbf) had to step in and remove gravedancing, my own included.
Shame this kind of edit isn't consistent or "Was%" would be a really fun speedrun. "Banned from Club Penguin%" energy.
I think it's important that Wikipedia remain unbiased and factual.
It just happens to be a fact that kissinger's death was worthy of celebration.
-
I think it's important that Wikipedia remain unbiased and factual.
It just happens to be a fact that kissinger's death was worthy of celebration.
If a public figure dies and some people have good things and bad things to say about them, that is just life.
If a public figure dies and a significant and diverse segment of the population want to dance on their grave and fight over who gets to celebrate their death the most, then that sounds like something of historical significance to me.
-
Some of it's going to be down to a major news org like the BBC being much more careful to make sure he's really dead. With Wikipedia, that's a fuck-up, but almost anyone can make it, and it can easily be undone. With the BBC, that kind of fuck-up would haunt them for years. I've also read that Sky News may have been the first to confirm his death. Looking at that edit, the editor didn't mention a source; they just "was"d him. Bad practice by Wikipedia's standards but worked out in the end.
I think it's a point of pride that we can be so up-to-date, but as a tertiary source, we rely on the credibility of secondary sources like the BBC to have any semblance of usability and order. I think we're running different races, and we couldn't run ours if they didn't run theirs.
ahh fair alright, Sky News released a short article at 8:05pm
when looking for it it was difficult to dig through a billion copy pasted sources, half of which were paywalled or "tUrN oFf yOuR aDbLocK"walled :')
-
The fuck does “nobody” add to this?
