# less_retarded_wiki

main page, file list (652), source, commit RSS feed, report abuse, stats, random article, consoomer version

# Wikipedia

3 + 2 = 5^[citation_needed] --Wikipedia

Wikipedia (also Wokepedia), the fair use encyclopedia, is a "non-commercial", partially free/open, highly censored ("child protecting", "ideology filtering", ...) pseudoleftist, matriarchal^[3], gay online "encyclopedia" of general knowledge and a social network written largely by volunteers, corporations, women and political activists, running on free software, which used to be editable by anyone but currently allows only politically approved members of the public to edit a subset of its less visible non-locked articles (i.e. it is a wiki); it is the largest and perhaps most famous encyclopedia created to date, now sadly already littered by propaganda and countless other issues that make it not only inferior to other encyclopedias, but harmful to whole society. It is licensed under CC-BY-SA and is run by the "nonprofit" organization Wikimedia Foundation. It is accessible at https://wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, as a mainstream information source, suffers^[3] from^[7] high political censorship^[15][4][32][69][135][93][36], essentially allowing only inclusion of "officially approved facts", without presenting objective, neutral overview, let alone different points of view. Wikipedia's claim of so called "neutral point of view" (NPOV) has infamously become synonymous with "liberal point of view" and presents an insult even to lowest human intelligence, it's been absolutely turned on its head. From a promising underground project Wikipedia sadly ascended to the mainstream, became one of the most visible places on the Internet, presenting huge attention capital, and like these stories always end, inevitably attracted corruption, abuse, and turned from documenting and recording truth to defining it -- for this digdeeper aptly called Wikipedia the Ministry of Truth.

WARNING: DO NOT DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA as the donations aren't used so much for running the servers but rather for their political activities (which are furthermore unethical). See https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4458111/the-wiki-piggy-bank. Rather donate to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Also please go vandalize Wikipedia right now, it's become too corrupt and needs to go down, vandalizing is fun and you'll get banned sooner or later anyway :) Some tips on vandalizing Wikipedia can be found at https://encyclopediadramatica.online/Wikipedia#Tips_On_Vandalizing_Wikpedia or https://wiki.soyjaks.party/Vandalism.

{ Lol I'm banned at Wikipedia now (UPDATE: blocked globally on all their sites now, can't even log in and defend on my talk page), reason being I expressed unpopular opinions on my personal website OUTSIDE Wikipedia :D UPDATE: one guy messaged me more people started to be banned and invited me to an anti-wikipedia forum here https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/, check it out. Also some more stuff on censorship and bias on Wikipedia: https://www.serendipity.li/cda/censorship_at_wikipedia.htm. ~drummyfish }

{ Wikipedia now officially has a "Rights of nature" series of articles. Nuff said. ~drummyfish }

Shortly after the project commenced in 2001, Wikipedia used to be a promising project -- it was very similar to how LRS wiki looks right now: relatively unbiased, objective, well readable and relying on nothing more than plain HTML and ASCII art (see it at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePage), but over the years corruption crept in and by 2020s it's left unrecognizable, a political battleground of colossal proportions and a big politically correct joke. A tragic and dangerous joke at that. This is not to say it's absolutely useless, but any bit of useful knowledge has to be found in an ocean of crap, Wikipedia just hardcore censors facts and even edits direct quotes to push a pseudoleftist propaganda. Do not trust Wikipedia, especially on anything even remotely touching politics, always check facts elsewhere, e.g. in old paper books, on Metapedia, Infogalactic, old Britannica etc. When reading Wikipedia always maintain awareness of its extreme pseudoleftist bias absolutely everywhere, every single sentence is shaped by evils of feminism, gay fascism, black supremacy and so on -- for example wherever there has a woman been even remotely involved in invention of something, she will automatically be credited with that invention over a man, and anything putting women in negative light (even in fiction) will be obscured; for example the article (May 2024) about the book The Chrysalids mentions that the work describes a place where people have bizarre habits, it fails to mention these bizarre habits are women putting men in cages, torturing them and abusing them only for reproduction. In reading anything you will be strategically misled this way, existence of topics deemed "dangerous" to someone who might happen to be blessed with access to the Internet or topics that wouldn't be good to "research" is strategically hidden from view because Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a "safe space" protecting children from "bad information", black people from getting offended etc. Thankfully as old Wikipedia is still accessible, you may also browse the older, slimmer, less up-to-date but less censored version, to see how it deranged from a project seeking truth to one abusing its popularity for propaganda.

Wikipedia exists in many (more than 200) versions differing mostly by the language used but also in other aspects; this includes e.g. Simple English Wikipedia or Wikipedia in Esperanto. All versions combined total over 50 million articles and more than 100 million users. English Wikipedia is the largest with over 7 million articles with a new article appearing on average every 1.26 days.

There are also many sister projects of Wikipedia such as Wikimedia Commons that gathers free as in freedom media for use on Wikipedia, WikiData, Wikinews or Wikisources.

Information about hardware and software used by Wikimedia Foundation can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers. As of 2022 Wikipedia runs of the traditional LAMP framework and its website doesn't require JavaScript (amazing!). Debian GNU/Linux is used on web servers (switched from Ubunatu in 2019). The foundation uses its own wiki engine called MediaWiki that's written mainly in PHP. Database used is MariaDB. The servers run on server clusters in 6 different data centers around the world which are rented: 3 in the US, 3 in Europe and 1 in Asia.

Wikipedia was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and was launched on 15 January 2001. The basic idea actually came from Ben Kovitz, a user of wikiwikiweb, who proposed it to Sanger. Wikipedia was made as a complementary project alongside Nupedia, an earlier encyclopedia by Wales and Sanger to which only verified experts could contribute. Wikipedia of course has shown to be a much more successful project.

There exist forks and alternatives to Wikipedia. Simple English Wikipedia can offer a simpler alternative to sometimes overly complicated articles on the main English Wikipedia. Citizendium is a similar online encyclopedia co-founded by Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia itself, which is however proprietary (NC license). Citizendium's goal is to improve on some weak points of Wikipedia such as its reliability or quality of writing. GNU Collaborative International Dictionary of English (GCIDE) is a large dictionary made by the GNU project (forked from old Webster's dictionary with new terms added). Justapedia is a recently spawned Wikipedia fork. Metapedia and Infogalactic are a Wikipedia forks that are written from a more rightist/neutral point of view. Infogalactic is also a Wikipedia fork that tries to remove the pseudoleftist bullshit etc. Encyclopedia Britannica can also be used as a nice resource: its older versions are already public domain and can be found e.g. at Project Gutenberg, and there is also a modern online version of Britannica which is proprietary (and littered with ads) but has pretty good articles even on modern topics (of course facts you find there are in the public domain). Practically for any specialized topic it is nowadays possible to find its own wiki on the Internet.

Important thing to realize is that, like most mainstream projects do, Wikipedia is not merely an encyclopedia -- hell no, it's also a self-proclaimed child protector, Internet state, a center for fighting for women rights, language police, a community, an organization for empowering black disabled lesbians and delivering justice. Did you ever wish your encyclopedia was your own private cop that told you which books are approved and prevented you from reading the bad ones? That with a book in your pocket you'd be actually constantly carrying around a community of diverse black fat trans editors ready to rewrite your book according to latest trends? That it would protect you from bad opinions, snapped your fingers and yelled `<CHILD PROTECT>` whenever you looked at a child picture for too long? Like your toothbrush is actually a subscription software with internet browser and remote camera, Wikipedia is a living, breathing entity that will decide what's best for you, without you having to think. Books that just provide information are so 20th century bro.

## Good And Bad Things About Wikipedia

Let's note a few positive and negative points about Wikipedia, as of 2022. Some good things are:

- Despite its flaws Wikipedia still remains a highly free, relatively high quality noncommercial source of knowledge for everyone, without ads and bullshit. It is quite helpful, Wikipedia may e.g. be printed out or saved in an offline version and used in the third world as a completely free educational resource (see Kiwix).
- Wikipedia helped prove the point of free culture and showed that a quite decentralized, "bazaar style" collaboration of volunteers can far surpass the best efforts of corporations.
- UPDATE: this is no longer true. Wikipedia's website is (/used to be) pretty nice (at least as of 2022), kind of minimalist, lightweight and works without Javascript. { Indeed as of 2023 they fucked it up :D It is still not as bad as other sites but it's shit now. ~drummyfish }
- Wikipedia is very friendly to computer analysis, it provides all its data publicly, in simple and open formats, and doesn't implement any DRM. This allows to make a lot of research, in depth searching, collection of statistics etc.
- Wikipedia drives the sister projects, some of which are extremely useful, e.g. Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata or MediaWiki.
- Even if politically biased, Wikipedia may serve as a basis for forks that fix the political bias (Metapedia, InfoGalactic, ...).
- Wikipedia presents itself as free encyclopedia (as of 2023), i.e. it uses the word "free" instead of "open", which is a good thing (see free software vs open source).
- Though it became corrupt and censored lately, the project managed to create a relatively good encyclopedia in the past, which is still completely accessible and free, e.g. at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org or internet archive.

And the bad things are (see also this site: http://digdeeper.club/articles/wikipedia.xhtml):

- Wikipedia is censored, politically correct, biased, pushes a harmful political propaganda and often just pure lies, even though it proclaims the opposite (which makes it much worse by added deception). A typical example is for example the force pushed image of a trans "woman" as the main image for woman in the "woman" article, i.e. even if it was already universally accepted trans women are "women" (which objectively it's still not, large number of population rejects this), a trans woman certainly does not represent a TYPICAL woman, i.e. something you'd want to see in a main picture of an article -- this is just purely political propaganda trying to promote an idea of what women should look like. This pseudoleftist subtext is by now not occasional, you will find it virtually in every paragraph on Wikipedia is some form. Of course, "offensive" material and material not aligned with pseudoleftist propaganda is removed as well as material connected to some controversial resources (e.g the link to 8chan, https://8kun.top, is censored, as well as Nina Paley's Jenndra Identitty comics, the whole article about child porn laws was removed to not serve as a "guide" and much more). There is a heavy pseudoleft, pseudoskeptic and soyence bias in the articles. It creates a list of banned sources (archive) which just removes all non-pseudoleftist sources -- so much for their "neutral point of view". The whole encyclopedia is subtly littered with a passive aggressive angry SJW mindset, exemplified for instance by its refusal to create a dedicated article on Brenton Tarrant (at least the English version), without a doubt a highly notable killer, simply because they don't want to give him "attention" -- so here's an encyclopedia whose aim is to PREVENT its reader from reaching a knowledge for purely political reasons. It wasn't always this way, browsing pre 2010 Wikipedia provides a less censored experience -- even in 2011 they still deservedly dedicated a whole article to Anders Breivik, a mass killer who's both in his actions and notability similar to Tarrant. Is there any good justification for having an article on Breivik (and much less significant people) but not on Tarrant? No, the difference is only that Breivik killed back when Wikipedia was more objective and neutral.
- Wikipedia includes material under fair use, such as screenshots from proprietary games and detailed plot summaries of proprietary books and movies, which makes it partially proprietary, i.e. Wikipedia is technically NOT 100% free. Material under fair use is still proprietary and can put remixers to legal trouble (e.g. if they put material from Wikipedia to a commercial context), even if the use on Wikipedia itself is legal (remember, proprietary software is legal too).
- Wikipedia is intentionally deceptive -- it supports its claims by "citations" ("race is a social construct"^1234567891011121314151617181920) to make things look as objective facts, but the citations are firstly cherry picked (there is a list of banned sources), self-made (articles of Wikipedians themselves) and secondly the sources often don't even support the claim, they're literally there just for "good look". Not only do they practice censorship, they claim they do NOT practice censorship and then write article on censorship so as to define censorship in their own convenient way :) Furthermore their articles intentionally omit points of view of their political opponents.
- "verifiability, not truth"
- Wikipedia often suffers from writing inconsistency, bad structure of text and poor writing in general. In a long article you sometimes find repeating paragraphs, sometimes a lot of stress is put on one thing while mentioning more important things only briefly, the level of explanation expertness fluctuates etc. This is because in many articles most people make small contributions without reading the whole article and without having any visions of the whole. And of course there are many contributors without any writing skills.
- Wikipedia is too popular which has the negative side effect of becoming a political battlefield. This is one of the reasons why there has to be a lot of bureaucracy, including things such as locking of articles and the inability to edit everything. Even if an article can technically be edited by anyone, there are many times people watching and reverting changes on specific articles. So Wikipedia can't fully proclaim it can be "edited by anyone".
- Wikipedia is hard to read. The articles go to great depth and mostly even simple topics are explained with a great deal of highly technical terms so that they can't be well understood by people outside the specific field, even if the topic could be explained simply (Simple English Wikipedia tries to fix this a little bit at least). Editors try to include as much information as possible which too often makes the main point of a topic drown in the blablabla. Wikipedia's style is also very formal and "not fun" to read, which isn't bad in itself but it just is boring to read. Some alternative encyclopedias such as Citizendium try to offer a more friendly reading style. Back in the day Wikipedia used to be written pretty well, check it out e.g. at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org.
- Wikipedia is not public domain. It is licensed under CC-BY-SA which is a free license, but has a few burdening conditions. We belive knowledge shouldn't be owned or burdened by any conditions.
- Even though there are no commercial ads (yet), there regularly appears political propaganda, main page just hard pushes feminist shit as featured images and articles, there appear popups and banners for LGBT/feminist activism and of course all articles are littered with pseudoleftist propaganda etc. The issues is it's not just an encyclopedia anymore where you go get your information, it's a group with opinions that's trying to drag you somewhere -- you just go look up some mathematical formula and suddenly you see something like "YAY, LET'S CELEBRATE WOMEN IN AFRICA TODAY", even if it was something you agree with (which it isn't) it's just as annoying and out of place in an encyclopedia as capitalist ads. UPDATE: In 2024 Wikipedia finally put on highly intrusive pop ups and in-text messages begging for money -- basically like what you see on any porn site -- this means the project is basically dead at this point and they're just milking the corpse -- that's good, Wikipedia certainly won't be missed.
- Many articles are bought, there exist companies that offer editing and maintaining certain articles in a way the client desires and of course corporations and politicians take this opportunity -- of course Wikipedia somewhat tries to prevent it but no prevention ever works 100%, so a lot of information on Wikipedia is either highly misleading, untrue, censored or downright fabricated.
- Wikipedia is written by children and its content has to be child friendly, i.e. anything that you'd want to hide from children you won't find on Wikipedia. This is an issue if you are an adult looking for complete facts. Wikipedia openly admits its editors and readers may be children and that it wants to "protect" them -- this of course comes for the price of making the encyclopedia a child safespace, a kind of kindergarden where no bad things or words can appear.

A small pro-tip to get the most out of Wikipedia: read the talk page (and possibly view the page AND talk page history AND the page source code with the "internal" comments). They are circlejerking citations and fact proofs on everything in the "official" article but if you want the gossip and politically unapproved stuff, you can find a lot of it on the public talk page where they are constantly fighting over what to include and what not, which facts are politically correct enough to be included etc.

      .-------------------------------------------------------------.
      |                                                             |
      |        <3 PLEASE DON'T SKIP THIS 10 MINUTE READ <3          |
      |                                                             |
      | RESPONSIBILITY, children and life environment now more than |
      | ever, we are live in times when SCIENCE VERIFIED FIGHT      |
      | RIGHTS to freedom and safe PRIVACY, PROTECTION and EXPERTS  |
      | DEFEND, MUSTN'T STOP READ! time to ACT like LINCOLN, must   |
      | have RESPONSIBILITY. Children and Earth are magical.        |
      |                                                             |
      |  Give us 20 bucks please.                                   |
      |                                                             |
      |  -- your encyclopedia that protects from unofficial facts   |
      |                                                             |
      |  this box was personally seen and signed and approved by    |
      |  dear C.E.O. of the encyclopedia of peer reviewed truth     |
      '-------------------------------------------------------------'

## Fun And Interesting Pages

We can stumble upon many interesting and entertaining pages and articles on Wikipedia, some of them are:

- unusual articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unusual_articles
- don't delete the main page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_delete_the_main_page
- Wikipedia records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_records
- longest pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages
- special pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SpecialPages
- list of lists of lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
- list of practical jokes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_practical_joke_topics
- NSA ANT catalog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_ANT_catalog
- comparison of various sounds in languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linguistic_onomatopoeias
- ...

## Alternatives

Due to the corruption and increasing censorship of Wikipedia it is important to look for alternatives that are important especially when researching anything connected to politics, but also when you just want a simpler, more condensed or simply better written explanation of some topic. There exist other similar online encyclopedias like Metapedia, Infogalactic, Citizendium, Leftypedia, GCIDE, New World Encyclopedia, Justapedia, HandWiki or Britannica online, as well as dozens of printed encyclopedias and old digitized encyclopedias like Britannica 11th edition. In October 2025 Elon Musk's Grokipedia went online, gradually transitioning from an initial "AI corrected" fork ow Wikipedia to a completely new "AI written" encyclopedia, and despite Musk being a retard, Grokipedia being a terrible name, the articles being proprietary and AI being bloat, the encyclopedia so far (as of writing this a few months old) looks surprisingly impressive and much more bearable than Wikipedia, showing a much more neutral tone, giving correct facts about such topics as race and intelligence, and even being accessible without fucking JavaScript (which is amazing but may be a temporary bait "feature", it may very likely change in the future). Then there is another noteworthy type of encyclopedias, sometimes called memopedias, among which are for example Encyclopedia Dramatica or Russian Lurkmore wiki and its forks (e.g. https://neolurk.org, calling itself the "people's Wikipedia", hinting at the fact that Wikipedia doesn't really belong to the people anymore) -- these are not so serious in tone, they're often called a satire, meme or parody by the "serious" ones, they're greatly uncensored and although being usually more focused on internet culture, they do to a great degree document knowledge at wide and sometimes manage to explain difficult topic very simply by going to the point and using humor and plain language. These encyclopedias are typically the most objective, uncensored and least politically infected and so they're a much better source on anything relating to society or politics -- where Wikipedia will strategically obscure and downplay "inconvenient facts", Dramatica will simply highlight anything that's of importance. Anyway, for a more comprehensive list of Wikipedia alternatives see the article on encyclopedias. Many people are actively criticizing Wikipedia and want to diminish its power, among whom is one of Wikipedia's founders, Larry Sanger, who established encyclosphere, a project that tries to connect together various Internet encyclopedias -- this may be another place to look for Wikipedia alternatives. Anyway the moral of the story here is probably to not rely on a single encyclopedia, as we see where that leads. Read more sources and different points of view.

{ See also old Wikipedia at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race. ~drummyfish }

## See Also

- Wiki
- encyclopedia
- wikidata
- Intellipedia
- Citizendium
- Infogalactic
- Metapedia
- wikiwikiweb
- lame

Powered by nothing. All content available under CC0 1.0 (public domain). Send comments and corrections to drummyfish at disroot dot org.