![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Doc glasgow |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,138 Joined: From: at home Member No.: 90 ![]() |
Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator. But even evil dictators don't deserve such shit wiki-bios.
It got me wondering - what's the most crappy article on a really important core topic that anyone can find on Wikipedia? Is the Gaddafi bio just bad because he's controversial. |
![]() ![]() |
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ??? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,693 Joined: Member No.: 9,267 ![]() |
Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator. But even evil dictators don't deserve such shit wiki-bios. Wikipedia is the rabble's only chance to throw their shoes at their preferred demiurge, or villain de nos jours. It would be much easier to list "Least crappy article", there are far fewer of them. The fumbling lede of Sexual intercourse is a study in the typical sweaty crapitutude of the porno-pedia. And, of course, it comes quickly with its own 'sausage in the hole' 'reader's wife' photo that I am sure 13 years boys are very grateful for. It is a wonder how my generation ever worked out how to have sex given that we only had technical line drawings in a Victorian Encyclopedia Britannia to work out how to do it. Any who of you have ever used the word "outercourse" enough to warrant its erection to the second paragraph? |
Milton Roe |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 10,209 Joined: Member No.: 5,156 ![]() |
It is a wonder how my generation ever worked out how to have sex given that we only had technical line drawings in a Victorian Encyclopedia Britannia to work out how to do it. I wonder if the print editions of Britannica of a few generations ago, even had line drawings. Anybody know? Back in the barnyard days of agrarian America, I suppose they could watch barnyard antics. Which would lead to a lot of French or doggy style stuff perhaps. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) I seem to recall that the Romans had a little sex stool that the man sat on, and sex was often not face-to-face. Goodness. Perhaps these furniture items served as wedding gifts in the days before toasters. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#4
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
It is a wonder how my generation ever worked out how to have sex given that we only had technical line drawings in a Victorian Encyclopedia Britannia to work out how to do it. I wonder if the print editions of Britannica of a few generations ago, even had line drawings. Anybody know? Back in the barnyard days of agrarian America, I suppose they could watch barnyard antics. Which would lead to a lot of French or doggy style stuff perhaps. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) I seem to recall that the Romans had a little sex stool that the man sat on, and sex was often not face-to-face. Goodness. Perhaps these furniture items served as wedding gifts in the days before toasters. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Indeed they did. I have the 1810 edition as well as three volumes of the 1776 2nd edition. Plenty of drawings. Indeed, the 2nd edition as a number of detailed illustrations of vaginas, so this aspect of encyclopedias was not uncelebrated even then. [edit] This sort of thing. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historic.../Smellie_33.jpg I suppose I could scan these in together with the 18th century penises and upload them to Commons, and be in good company. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
melloden |
![]()
Post
#5
|
. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 450 Joined: Member No.: 34,482 ![]() |
[edit] This sort of thing. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historic.../Smellie_33.jpg I suppose I could scan these in together with the 18th century penises and upload them to Commons, and be in good company. It looks like that abnormally fat baby is someone's head. And the butt cheeks are soggy boobs. What a horrid drawing. What makes it worse is that the illustrator's name was "Smellie". This post has been edited by melloden: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |