The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Most crappy important article
Doc glasgow
post Tue 22nd March 2011, 10:18pm
Post #1


Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined: Sat 1st Apr 2006, 10:39pm
From: at home
Member No.: 90

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Tue 22nd March 2011, 10:51pm
Post #2


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



That's an interesting question, but wp articles on high-profile people like Gaddafi or Chavez have become almost no-fly zones, a bit like Libya itself. Wikipedia has no structures in place analagous to the UN or NATO, so the various factions just have to slug it out, manoeuvring to try and have their opponents blocked, or better yet banned.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Doc glasgow
post Tue 22nd March 2011, 10:57pm
Post #3


Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined: Sat 1st Apr 2006, 10:39pm
From: at home
Member No.: 90

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 10:51pm) *

That's an interesting question, but wp articles on high-profile people like Gaddafi or Chavez have become almost no-fly zones, a bit like Libya itself. Wikipedia has no structures in place analagous to the UN or NATO, so the various factions just have to slug it out, manoeuvring to try and have their opponents blocked, or better yet banned.



yes, a war of attrition (or ought that to be attribution).

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Tue 22nd March 2011, 11:46pm
Post #4


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,859
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



WWII. It's a top 20 article, and has major errors of fact, as well as some really screwy priorities.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 22nd March 2011, 11:57pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Doc, if you can define "importance" for us, I'd like to participate in this exercise. I think I know how "crappy" is defined.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Doc glasgow
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 12:22am
Post #6


Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined: Sat 1st Apr 2006, 10:39pm
From: at home
Member No.: 90

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 11:57pm) *

Doc, if you can define "importance" for us, I'd like to participate in this exercise. I think I know how "crappy" is defined.



I suppose I mean articles you'd expect to find in a moderately sized paper encyclopaedia. Say top 3,000 articles of interest to the general public (i.e. not exclusively 20 something male internet nerds who know more about Wayne's World that World Wars).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 1:04am
Post #7


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



WP articles on major corporations tend to be either stubs, or battlegrounds for two general groups: paid editors trying to make a happy-love-time article, and Wiki-Dinks with progressive views posting negative information about the firm.

Look at the IBM article. The long and varied history of America's most venerable computing company is glossed over miserably; there's a large section of "selected current projects" that looks like a bunch of company press releases mashed together; and an "environmental record" section that appears to have been massaged by company shills, and fails to mention the severe pollution problems at the Almaden Research Center.

Oh, yeah, wanna see something really funny?

Yes, I saw the History of IBM article. It's full of random-appearing detail, is poorly written, and has plenty of references that aren't referring to anything. Some of the articles about historic IBM products are pretty good, some are utter crap.

Go ahead, try any Fortune 500 firm's name.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 23rd March 2011, 1:35am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Versa
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 4:02am
Post #8


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri 20th Jun 2008, 11:51pm
Member No.: 6,679

WP user page - talk
check - contribs




I think that the article on asshole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole is pretty bad.


Especially this:
"Asstard is another rarer variant upon the ass- theme. It is possibly a portmanteau of asshole and retard and has almost the same meaning as asshole, but with a greater implied connotation of stupidity.[citation needed] An identically spelled version of the same word is a contraction of asshole and bastard, with a commensurately more abusive meaning."


Do you have to ask the person who called you an asstard whether they are using the asshole+retard version or the asshole+bastard version in order to determine if they intend to insult you with the commensurately more abusive meaning?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 4:12am
Post #9


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
Member No.: 34,482



They already made a list at this page. So just go ahead and look for the low-rated ones.

Mountain looks pretty crappy. Country is quite short. Entertainment is a joke--"Some people find animation to be amusing. Similarly, some people find cartoons to be entertaining"--is this supposed to be for stupid people?

Job (role) is even worse, as are cuisine and government.

The list goes on and on, but I stopped looking after prose.

It's true, however, that broader, general topics are harder to cover well than specific ones.

This post has been edited by melloden: Wed 23rd March 2011, 4:16am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 5:13am
Post #10


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 9:12pm) *

Entertainment is a joke--"Some people {{who?}} find animation to be amusing. Similarly, some people {{who?}} find cartoons to be entertaining" dry.gif

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 9:12pm) *

--is this supposed to be for stupid people?

Is that a trick question? ermm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 2:15pm
Post #11


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 9:04pm) *

Go ahead, try any Fortune 500 firm's name.


I struggled for a while to adjust the 60:40 ratio of controversy:not-controversy on the Comcast article, which had gotten so bad, even an established editor was unwittingly adding neutral/favorable factual content to the "Controversies" section.

The article is such a mess, the section about Comcast's purchase of a majority share of NBC Universal is positioned at the same outline level as the fact that Comcast has started transmitting three HD channels per Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) carrier, rather than two per QAM like some other video service providers.

Also, I corrected a 6-year-old mistake that was originally entered by Angela Beesley, co-founder of Wikia, Inc.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 3:16pm
Post #12


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 10:18pm) *
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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 8:13pm
Post #13


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 23rd March 2011, 8:16am) *

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. 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. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 8:20pm
Post #14


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 23rd March 2011, 8:13pm) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 23rd March 2011, 8:16am) *

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. 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. 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: Wed 23rd March 2011, 8:27pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 8:27pm
Post #15


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Texas Towers is a miserable excuse for an article.

This old radomes.org article is far more useful and detailed.

One of the dumbest things the US Air Force built during the Cold War--but don't ask Wikipedia about that!
Maybe someday, someone will set an FPS videogame on a Texas Tower, whereupon the Wiki-Noids will go "omg we need a better article". yecch.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Wed 23rd March 2011, 9:11pm
Post #16


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
Member No.: 34,482



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 23rd March 2011, 8:20pm) *

[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: Wed 23rd March 2011, 9:12pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Fri 25th March 2011, 6:08pm
Post #17


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 10:18pm) *

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.

Information technology. No contest.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Fri 25th March 2011, 6:13pm
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 25th March 2011, 6:08pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 22nd March 2011, 10:18pm) *

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.

Information technology. No contest.


Agreed, wow. IT is one of the fastest growing fields in the world and this article is, like, three paragraphs.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Fri 25th March 2011, 6:44pm
Post #19


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Fri 25th March 2011, 6:13pm) *

Agreed, wow. IT is one of the fastest growing fields in the world and this article is, like, three paragraphs.

Until Malleus cleaned out the worst of the shit, it used to be even worse.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Fri 25th March 2011, 6:50pm
Post #20


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Honorable mention for Factory as well.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 8 14, 6:17am