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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> WWII according to Wikipedia
Peter Damian
post Sun 31st October 2010, 9:09am
Post #1


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



Apologies if this has already been discussed.

A very funny parody here http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/10/...line_encycl.php about how the nerds at Wikipedia deal with history.

QUOTE
he following is a brief characterization of World War Two:

Japanese Imperial, German Nazi, and Italian Fascists, and others, formed an axis intent on taking over large areas of the world.

They were opposed by British, French, Soviets, American and others who formed an alliance.

The main part of the war, involving numerous military forces, lasted about five years, and the total death toll from fighting and ancillary strife reached tens of millions.

Notable was the attempt by the Nazis to systematically exterminate the Jews and some other groups, a project which resulted in the death of about six million people mainly in death camps.

The war changed the global map of nations, the world's economy, and gave rise to movements and organizations intent on making sure that large scale war of this type would not happen again.

The allies won.



QUOTE
The following is a brief characterization of World War Two after the dweebs who write and edit Wikipedia get hold of it:

Nazi Germany, or the Third Reich, is the common name for the country of Germany while governed by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) from 1933 to 1945.
Third Reich (German: Drittes Reich) denotes the Nazi state as a historical successor to the medieval Holy Roman Empire (962-1806) and to the modern German Empire (1871-1918).
A major part of the German military was the Schutzstaffel.
While a multitude of uniforms existed for the SS, often depending on the theatre of war where they were stationed, the all black SS uniform is the most well known.
The very first SA uniforms and insignia were paramilitary uniforms fashioned by early Nazis which incorporated parts from World War I uniforms to include such features used by other Freikorps formation such as high boots, daggers, and the kepi hat.
Nazi Germany had two official names, the Deutsches Reich (German Reich), from 1933 to 1943, when it became GroƟdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich).
For the Japanese Army, the Type 3 Officers Uniform, was introduced in 1943 and was similar to the Type 98 but was made of cheaper materials.
There were many helmets
Adrian helmet - As with many countries, the IJA adopted and produced the French Adrian helmet.
There were war crimes.
Type 92 - The Adrian helmet was later replaced by a Japanese designed helmet called the Type 92 (1932).
Six million Jews and others were exterminated by the Nazis.
Type 90 - was like the cork helmet issued by the European imperial powers.
Up to nearly 80 million people died as a direct result of the war.
Type 92 - This was a cork version of the Type 92 steel helmet.
The US marines came to their own as a major military force during this war.
The Marine Corps dress uniform is an elaborate uniform worn for formal or ceremonial occasions.
The marines attacked Guadalcanal on August 7th 1942.
During the ensuing battle, over 10,000 marines were wounded.
The dress uniform for the US marines has used a single brass button on the sleeve since 1923.
And so on and so forth


The comments are good too.

QUOTE
Whenever I see anyone whining about Wikipedia, my response is: "So fix it." That's the main feature of Wikipedia -- if you think you can do it better, do it. There are (basically) no filters; you don't have to wait for anyone's approval. It's yours to improve.
So fix it.

Yeah, I did that once and I ran into a wall of shit. It takes a special kind of person to delve into that business.


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 31st October 2010, 9:12am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Sun 31st October 2010, 10:12am
Post #2


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 31st October 2010, 9:09am) *

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

It's one of Emperor's favorite topics.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18641

Also tends to attract Milton.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Sun 31st October 2010, 1:56pm
Post #3


Try spam today!
*******

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



I like this guy. He seems to get it:

QUOTE
Anyway, in reviewing these Wikipedia entries, I noticed that the Wikipedia process has it's own pattern, including a preponderance of (amateur?) military historians at the keyboard who are unable to leave a single fact unturned no matter how insignificant, and a nearly complete lack of proportion so that very important facts get glossed.


We've tried to do better with World War II - Encyc, though there are still a few red links to fill in. See also: World War II - Encyc PmWiki.

I don't think it takes a professional historian to write a decent article, but one does need to get out of Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
occono
post Sat 6th November 2010, 10:27pm
Post #4


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat 6th Nov 2010, 4:31am
Member No.: 32,049

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
Disclaimer: What you are about to read consists of a Hollywood History version of WWII. See America Wins The War for some of the problems present here. Viewer discretion advised.


That's the disclaimer at the top of the TV Tropes World War II page. The page didn't set out to be a "Hollywood History" version of the war, it's just admitting that's what's it turned out to be.

How would you write a similar disclaimer for the faults in Wikipedia's page?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th 8 14, 1:15am