Crap articles

[Zoloft]

posts have been moved to *gestures* over there.

[EricBarbour]

MV Lyubov Orlova (T-H-L) is a good Wiki-slobber item, full of stupid typos.

[Peter Damian]

Hoodie (T-H-L) is a treat.

"The garment's style and form can be traced back to Medieval Europe when the formal wear for monks included a long, decorative hood called cowl worn a tunic or robes."

"the hoodie's element of instant anonymity, provided by the accessible hood, appealed to those with criminal intent"

"By the 1990s, the hoodie had evolved into a symbol of isolation, a statement of academic spirit, and several fashion collections."

"Across Canada, hoodies are also popular. "

[Volunteer Marek]

South_Carolina_civil_disturbances_of_1876 (T-H-L) or specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =512971698.

The article was created in 2006, has had about 30 edits since then and not a single one of them thought to remove the blatantly racist material. It has been tagged as needing sources and verification since 2007. It's been tagged for POV only in 2011 - so from 2006 to 2011 it was apparently deemed just dandy - and no one's bothered to actually remove the POV. I actually sympathise with that, I took out the most obnoxious stuff and realized that to do something with this article, aside from deleting it and starting from scratch (and it does meet notability criteria) would require a lot more time and work than I'm willing to put in. Hell, actually the one edit that tried to do something about the racist POV got reverted... on POV grounds http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =442781300. It seems to get about 250 views per month.

So much for crowd sourcing.

[Mason]

Bibleman (T-H-L) is pretty damn bad.

[The Joy]

I'm very disappointed in Magician (paranormal) (T-H-L). The article title doesn't even make sense.

[EricBarbour]

Bibleman (T-H-L) is pretty damn bad.

I've seen a lot of edit histories, but that is one of the weirdest. Numerous IP addresses. usually adding stupidity.
It's always been damn bad, right back to its creation in 2004. Embarrassing.

[tarantino]

buci

It's only the English wiktionary, but still, why has Dick Laurent been allowed to run amok?

[EricBarbour]

Irving Cummings (T-H-L)

Cummings was born in New York City. His father of screenwriter, Irving Cummings, Jr.

Cummings was a legend, and this is pathetic coverage for a legend.

[Mason]

buci

It's only the English wiktionary, but still, why has Dick Laurent been allowed to run amok?

That's messed up.

[EricBarbour]

ZAP Xebra (T-H-L)

It isn't merely crap. It's hopelessly out of date. This story ran today.

Plus, there are little signs of paid editing in the history.

Most of the articles in Category:Electric Cars are crap, and outdated.

[EricBarbour]

Not only is this a crappy article, it directly related to the "men's rights" squabbling. The edit history and talkpage are extremely disturbing.
All because he published cartoons saying things like "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!" (And most of it happened back in 2007....)

Todd Goldman (T-H-L)

[greyed.out.fields]

http://creationwiki.org/Damselflies

That's pretty typical of the "writing" on Creationwiki. They seem to be much worse at editing than WP, or even Conservapedia.

I was blissfully unaware that "worse than Conservapedia" was possible. Sigh.

The picture described as a "larva" is a nymph. That's (a) something you learn in junior high school biology (b) apparently something you don't learn if you are home-schooled.

[EricBarbour]

Try this:

Kim Cascone (T-H-L).

It's been there since March 2007 -- notice all the red links.
(Not to mention the article about Cascone's defunct record label.)

And who wrote most of the article? Why, Kim Cascone, of course!
Not to mention an IP address, located in Fort Bragg, California.
Guess where Mr. Cascone lives now.

[lilburne]

http://creationwiki.org/Damselflies

That's pretty typical of the "writing" on Creationwiki. They seem to be much worse at editing than WP, or even Conservapedia.

I was blissfully unaware that "worse than Conservapedia" was possible. Sigh.

The picture described as a "larva" is a nymph. That's (a) something you learn in junior high school biology (b) apparently something you don't learn if you are home-schooled.

Oddly my copy of Corbet's "Dragonflies: Behaviour and Ecology of Odonata" has no index mention for nymph and the British Dragonfly Society has 2 books entitled "Field Guide to the larvae and exuviae of British Dragonflies" one for Anisoptera and the other for the Zygoptera.

[Malleus]

http://creationwiki.org/Damselflies

That's pretty typical of the "writing" on Creationwiki. They seem to be much worse at editing than WP, or even Conservapedia.

I was blissfully unaware that "worse than Conservapedia" was possible. Sigh.

The picture described as a "larva" is a nymph. That's (a) something you learn in junior high school biology (b) apparently something you don't learn if you are home-schooled.

A nymph is a larva, something you ought to have learned in school.

[Zoloft]

Let's not bug each other here now.

[SB_Johnny]

http://creationwiki.org/Damselflies

That's pretty typical of the "writing" on Creationwiki. They seem to be much worse at editing than WP, or even Conservapedia.

I was blissfully unaware that "worse than Conservapedia" was possible. Sigh.

The picture described as a "larva" is a nymph. That's (a) something you learn in junior high school biology (b) apparently something you don't learn if you are home-schooled.

A nymph is a larva, something you ought to have learned in school.

Well, sorta. IIRC, larvae undergo complete metamorphosis to become an adult, while nymphs just gradually become more and more adult-like with each molting (instar). OTOH, I didn't learn that until college, not junior high.

[lilburne]

A nymph is a larva, something you ought to have learned in school.

Well, sorta. IIRC, larvae undergo complete metamorphosis to become an adult, while nymphs just gradually become more and more adult-like with each molting (instar). OTOH, I didn't learn that until college, not junior high.

You cannot reliably use that definition which is basically hemimetabolous (nymphs) vs holometabolous (larvae) because various authorities mix and match across the taxonomy groups. For example the last instar of Odonata may be termed a nymph, whilst the earlier stages are termed larvae. Also when you come to languages other than English there is no real distinction or greater confusion, in French 'nymphe' would be closer to pupae (ie associated with the holometabolous), the Germans tend to just use larvae.

[SB_Johnny]

A nymph is a larva, something you ought to have learned in school.

Well, sorta. IIRC, larvae undergo complete metamorphosis to become an adult, while nymphs just gradually become more and more adult-like with each molting (instar). OTOH, I didn't learn that until college, not junior high.

You cannot reliably use that definition which is basically hemimetabolous (nymphs) vs holometabolous (larvae) because various authorities mix and match across the taxonomy groups. For example the last instar of Odonata may be termed a nymph, whilst the earlier stages are termed larvae. Also when you come to languages other than English there is no real distinction or greater confusion, in French 'nymphe' would be closer to pupae (ie associated with the holometabolous), the Germans tend to just use larvae.

That's not what I was taught, but then again it's probably just a case of entomology geek nit-pickiness (or Phthiraptera-nymph-pickiness, if you prefer), in a similar vein to engineering geeks who like to point out that General Motors is a misnomer (or was before the "volt" came along).

[lilburne]

That's not what I was taught, but then again it's probably just a case of entomology geek nit-pickiness (or Phthiraptera-nymph-pickiness, if you prefer), in a similar vein to engineering geeks who like to point out that General Motors is a misnomer (or was before the "volt" came along).

There is a common perception that if two or more entomologist get together during 5 consecutive wet days in summer they'll rename a whole group of critters and find new/old terminology for the others.

http://www.warwickshire-dragonflies.org ... php#120423

[Crisco 1492]

Deconstruction

When XKCD slams your article (see mouse-over text) you know you're in trouble.

[greyed.out.fields]

http://creationwiki.org/Damselflies

That's pretty typical of the "writing" on Creationwiki. They seem to be much worse at editing than WP, or even Conservapedia.

I was blissfully unaware that "worse than Conservapedia" was possible. Sigh.

The picture described as a "larva" is a nymph. That's (a) something you learn in junior high school biology (b) apparently something you don't learn if you are home-schooled.

A nymph is a larva, something you ought to have learned in school.

Larvae are little wiggly things sans legs, sans eyes, sans... well, they certainly not like little versions of adult spp. like the nymph instars. Belligerent Ghouls Run Manchester Schools http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp09RDlr2DA, apparently. That may have been the source of your misunderstanding. PS: Radiohead's version of that song should be included in the (as yet non-existent) Wikipedia article "List of covers that were better than the original" alongside the Hendrix take on "All Along the Watchtower", the Beatles "Twist and Shout", and The Byrds "Hey Mister Tambourine Man" and "Turn, Turn, Turn".

[Peter Damian]

Deconstruction

When XKCD slams your article (see mouse-over text) you know you're in trouble.

That's an interesting one. The version of Dec 2006 was reasonably intelligible (given that anything to do with Derrida is not very intelligible). The current version is not intelligible. Yet crowdsourcing is meant to ensure that articles improve over time.

In contemporary philosophy and social sciences, the term deconstruction denotes a process by which the texts and languages of (particularly) Western philosophy appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in light of the assumptions they suggest about and absences they reveal within themselves. Jacques Derrida coined the term in the 1960s, and found that he could talk more readily about what deconstruction was not than about what it was, most especially in reply to questions posed by others about it.

Subjects relevant to deconstruction include the philosophy of meaning in Western thought, and the ways that meaning is constructed by Western writers, texts, and readers and understood by readers. Though Derrida himself denied deconstruction was a method or school of philosophy, or indeed anything outside of reading the text itself, the term has been used by others to describe Derrida's particular methods of textual criticism, which involved discovering, recognizing, and understanding the underlying—and unspoken and implicit—assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that form the basis for thought and belief, for example, in complicating the ordinary division made between nature and culture. Derrida's deconstruction was drawn mainly from the work of Heidegger and his notion of Destruktion but also from Levinas and his ideas upon the Other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =539352044 08:19, 28 December 2006

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a form of semiotic analysis, derived mainly from French philosopher Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology. Derrida proposed the deconstruction of all texts where binary oppositions are used in the construction of meaning and values.[1] The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and afterwards in literary and juridical texts, would be to overturn all the binary oppositions of metaphysics (signifier/signified; sensible/intelligible; writing/speech; passivity/activity; etc). According to Derrida, deconstruction should traverse a phase of "overturning" these oppositions.

To do justice to this necessity, deconstruction starts from recognizing that in a classical philosophical opposition readers are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or one of the two terms is dominant (signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity; male over female; man over animal, etc). To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, would be to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment.[2] To overlook this phase of overturning would be to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =539352044 [27 Feb 2013]

[dogbiscuit]

Deconstruction

When XKCD slams your article (see mouse-over text) you know you're in trouble.

That's an interesting one. The version of Dec 2006 was reasonably intelligible (given that anything to do with Derrida is not very intelligible). The current version is not intelligible. Yet crowdsourcing is meant to ensure that articles improve over time.

In contemporary philosophy and social sciences, the term deconstruction denotes a process by which the texts and languages of (particularly) Western philosophy appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in light of the assumptions they suggest about and absences they reveal within themselves. Jacques Derrida coined the term in the 1960s, and found that he could talk more readily about what deconstruction was not than about what it was, most especially in reply to questions posed by others about it.

Subjects relevant to deconstruction include the philosophy of meaning in Western thought, and the ways that meaning is constructed by Western writers, texts, and readers and understood by readers. Though Derrida himself denied deconstruction was a method or school of philosophy, or indeed anything outside of reading the text itself, the term has been used by others to describe Derrida's particular methods of textual criticism, which involved discovering, recognizing, and understanding the underlying—and unspoken and implicit—assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that form the basis for thought and belief, for example, in complicating the ordinary division made between nature and culture. Derrida's deconstruction was drawn mainly from the work of Heidegger and his notion of Destruktion but also from Levinas and his ideas upon the Other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =539352044 08:19, 28 December 2006

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a form of semiotic analysis, derived mainly from French philosopher Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology. Derrida proposed the deconstruction of all texts where binary oppositions are used in the construction of meaning and values.[1] The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and afterwards in literary and juridical texts, would be to overturn all the binary oppositions of metaphysics (signifier/signified; sensible/intelligible; writing/speech; passivity/activity; etc). According to Derrida, deconstruction should traverse a phase of "overturning" these oppositions.

To do justice to this necessity, deconstruction starts from recognizing that in a classical philosophical opposition readers are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or one of the two terms is dominant (signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity; male over female; man over animal, etc). To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, would be to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment.[2] To overlook this phase of overturning would be to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =539352044 [27 Feb 2013]

I'll be your test sample. I've never really taken any notice of "deconstruction" aside from being vaguely aware it is the sort of phrase that someone from Monty Python would use to fake the appearance of being intellectual.

The first one told me something that sparked a vague understanding: by analysis of writings knowing that they are written from a particular perspective, you can understand something of that perspective from what is written and what is assumed. Something along those lines.

The second one looks like the article for number 2 in Simple English and has no comprehensible message to me.

[EricBarbour]

I'll be your test sample. I've never really taken any notice of "deconstruction" aside from being vaguely aware it is the sort of phrase that someone from Monty Python would use to fake the appearance of being intellectual.

The first one told me something that sparked a vague understanding: by analysis of writings knowing that they are written from a particular perspective, you can understand something of that perspective from what is written and what is assumed. Something along those lines.

The second one looks like the article for number 2 in Simple English and has no comprehensible message to me.

This seems to be the general pattern with Wikipedia articles over time. They start out as the work of one or a few people, early on,
who were actually trying to write a general encyclopedia article. Usually the result was a clear, layman-level essay.
Then random people, apparently college students of the subject or "hipsters" who want to prove how smart and knowledgeable
they are, slowly turn it into a parody of itself. The information isn't necessarily wrong, it's badly presented, almost like a hash of
random quotes from those precious "secondary references".

Wikipedians, taken as a mob, do NOT understand postmodernism, or much of any other -ism. However, libertarians love
Jacques Derrida (T-H-L), and have turned his bio into 155k bytes of unreadable drivel, all carefully referenced.
Major reasons for the mess include Hibrido Mutante (T-C-L), Mtevfrog (T-C-L), Buffyg (T-C-L), some IP addresses,
and most of all, one SummerWithMorons (T-C-L) (who was mostly into TV shows). Appropriate username.

Before Buffyg showed up in 2004, it was a short but adequate bio, readable at a high-school level. The edit after, by an IP address, turned it into soup.

[HRIP7]

Deconstruction

When XKCD slams your article (see mouse-over text) you know you're in trouble.

Welcome.

[The Joy]

Teen marriage (T-H-L)

Although a majority of teen marriages suffer from complications and often lead to divorce, some are successful. Teen between the ages of 16 and 19 know who they will marry. For example, in India, where teenagers are sometimes forced to marry by arrangement, more than 90% of these marriages will not end in divorce. In the United States, half of teen marriages dissolve within 15 years of the marriage.[3] The rate of teen marriage, however, is decreasing due the many opportunities that are available now that previously were not available before. Presently, teen marriage is not widely accepted in much of the world.[4] Teen marriage is most prevalent in culturally or geographically isolated parts of the world and it is decreasing where education is the focus of the population.

---

Results

Teen couples regularly have unhappy marriages, which might lead to a divorce. One in three teen marriages ends in divorce by the age of 25. Which is no different than the statistics for adult marriage. Additionally, according to Bob and Sheri Stitof, "marriages and divorce rates have increased by 68 percent since 1995. Also, one out of every four teenagers have parents that are divorced."[14]

[EricBarbour]

Teen marriage (T-H-L)

Typical of the "writing" that Indian Wikipedians give to the world. Get used to it, because you will see more and more
in the coming years. No one has fallen harder for Jimbo's lies than India.

[HRIP7]

Teen marriage (T-H-L)

Typical of the "writing" that Indian Wikipedians give to the world. Get used to it, because you will see more and more
in the coming years. No one has fallen harder for Jimbo's lies than India.

The legal status of circumstances surrounding teenage marriage vary from one area or era to the next.

There seems to be a strange kind of brain rot in the English-speaking world where it seems people now have such a short span of attention that they can't remember what the (singular) subject of their sentence is when there is another (plural) noun intervening between subject and verb. That sentence has only been in the article for three years.

[The Joy]

Teen marriage (T-H-L)

Typical of the "writing" that Indian Wikipedians give to the world. Get used to it, because you will see more and more
in the coming years. No one has fallen harder for Jimbo's lies than India.

Oh, I've tried to "fix" some Indian military articles early in my Wikipedia career. It was a lost cause. I had no idea what the point was in most of them and many needed to be completely re-written. I was in no mood dealing with Indian nationalists coming after me, so I left them in their terrible state.

[The Joy]

Tales of the Gun (T-H-L)

[Vocal]

Les Fourberies de Scapin (T-H-L)

[EricBarbour]

Les Fourberies de Scapin (T-H-L)

Apart from being short and sketchy, and talking too much about the American adaptations, what's wrong with it?

[Vocal]

Les Fourberies de Scapin (T-H-L)

Apart from being short and sketchy, and talking too much about the American adaptations, what's wrong with it?

The infobox is a joke. It repeats what the article text already says but in less detail. It's fancy formatting for its own sake.

(of course, that can probably said about most infoboxes)

[Kumioko]

There is no end to the Crap articles available in Wikipedia. As the number of editors and admins continues to dwindle it will only get worse.

[thekohser]

You would think WP:NOT (T-H-L) would cover crap like Three-date rule (T-H-L), but I guess not.

[Kumioko]

You would think WP:NOT (T-H-L) would cover crap like Three-date rule (T-H-L), but I guess not.

I'm not just limiting the term "crap" to articles. There are lots of templates, categories, files, assorted other content and definately a lot of essays like Diva and hundreds of others that fall squarley in the pervue of "crap".

[The Joy]

You would think WP:NOT (T-H-L) would cover crap like Three-date rule (T-H-L), but I guess not.

I've been looking at articles related to Polyamory (T-H-L).

NSFW:

Threesome (T-H-L)

Foursome (T-H-L)

[EricBarbour]

Ya wanna see a prime example of moronic fanboy raving? Unsourced, disorganized, never fixed?

Eurobeat (T-H-L)

[Hex]

Cheese and onion pie (T-H-L)

I'm so glad that someone took the time to explain that to the world.

[Moswento]

The area of food is a good place to look for crap articles, such as:

Choc ice (T-H-L)

Many ice-cream aficionados strongly recommend avoiding older products available just before the beginning of a new season, as they would have spent nearly a year in a freezer, going melty and weird.

Pickled onion (T-H-L)

In the United Kingdom the larger yellow (25mm + diameter) onions are often on sale but rarely eaten alongside fish and chips and much more commonly included as part of a ploughman's lunch.

Sticky bun (T-H-L)

The way the buns were baked allows them to more or less be pulled off as individual servings, although it is often a futile effort.

Cucumber soup (T-H-L)

The cucumber soup is a soup based on cucumbers, also known in various cuisines.

[dogbiscuit]

The area of food is a good place to look for crap articles, such as:

Choc ice (T-H-L)

Many ice-cream aficionados strongly recommend avoiding older products available just before the beginning of a new season, as they would have spent nearly a year in a freezer, going melty and weird.

Pickled onion (T-H-L)

In the United Kingdom the larger yellow (25mm + diameter) onions are often on sale but rarely eaten alongside fish and chips and much more commonly included as part of a ploughman's lunch.

Sticky bun (T-H-L)

The way the buns were baked allows them to more or less be pulled off as individual servings, although it is often a futile effort.

Cucumber soup (T-H-L)

The cucumber soup is a soup based on cucumbers, also known in various cuisines.

A fine collection!

Don't tell Russavia about the Cucumber soup, whatever you do.

[Tarc]

My Little Pony: Fighting Is Magic (T-H-L)

Christ almighty, 17k on an amateur Brony fan film that was never actually made.

[EricBarbour]

My Little Pony: Fighting Is Magic (T-H-L)

Christ almighty, 17k on an amateur Brony fan film that was never actually made.

I see bullshit like this routinely. (It's not a film, it is a fighting game.)
Problem is that gamer websites wrote about it, because the brony idiots chased after publicity for years.
Result: now it has "references". So, this crap article about a crap subject will probably endure.

That is one of the "open secrets" about Wikipedia: generate your own references, and no one will challenge you.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronies:_T ... ittle_Pony

A hell of a lot of detail for such insipid non-projects. The game has yet to be released, the documentary was a Kickstarter project that is only available by direct-to-video. Why? Well......
"However, in early February 2013, the production team announced that due to high rates of piracy of the digital version within the brony community, they ceased further work on these features, stating "that investing any more time and energy would be not be worthwhile""

A lot of the "content" in these "articles" was written by idiot administrator Masem (T-C-L), a gamer man-boy. He's protecting them.

He's got a blog:
http://masem.wordpress.com/

[DanMurphy]

Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq (T-H-L).

This "article" has been on Wikipedia since Feb. 2003. These are the first two paragraphs:

In late 2001, a the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was formed. In February 2002, amid a backlash of public outcry after a New York Times article, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he lacked knowledge of the program and the OSI was closed down.[1] </ref>

In January 2003, President George W. Bush announced "the creation of a White House 'Office of Global Communications' to broadcast the United States' message worldwide ahead of possible war on Iraq."[2] According to the White House, the office was to disseminate the policies of the U.S. Government to media sources, domestic and foreign, and send "teams of communicators to international hot spots, areas of media interest."[3]

Almost as bad is the sister "article" Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq (T-H-L) which dates to Jan. 2003. This article informs us that there were various opinions about the invasion of Iraq.

The events surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq have led to numerous expressions of opinion with respect to the war. This page contains links to several topics relating to views on the invasion, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq.

Those links are to a bunch of poorly-written articles composed by ignorant ideologues and children.

Wikipedia, always improving. Really?

[EricBarbour]

Those links are to a bunch of poorly-written articles composed by ignorant ideologues and children.
Wikipedia, always improving. Really?

Those were all written originally by early insiders, like Mav, Stevertigo, and longtime freak (and protector of Blofeld) Anome.
It's an ideal, perfect example of Wikipedia's early left-wing biases, delivered by a small group of people. The articles grow over
the years, but they don't improve, because it's a "boring subject" to the gamer manchildren who enter Wikipedia later.

They would have not have grown quite as much, except for a few nerds: Christiaan (T-C-L), Trackerwiki (T-C-L), and a small number of others.
They spent a lot of hours in 2005-09 grinding them. Some are probably socks of the "usual suspects" as well.

[The Joy]

Toilet-related injuries and deaths (T-H-L)

List of unusual deaths (T-H-L)

[thekohser]

List of unusual deaths (T-H-L)

Maybe it's just me, but I think this is exactly what Wikipedia is perfect for -- crowdsourced collection of short bits of human interest anecdotes.

[DanMurphy]

Binocular vision (T-H-L). This is how it begins. One despairs.

Binocular vision is vision in which both eyes are used together. The word binocular comes from two Latin roots, bini for double, and oculus for eye.[1] Having two eyes confers at least four advantages over having one. First, it gives a creature a spare eye in case one is damaged. Second, it gives a wider field of view. For example, humans have a maximum horizontal field of view of approximately 200 degrees with two eyes, approximately 120 degrees of which makes up the binocular field of view (seen by both eyes) flanked by two uniocular fields (seen by only one eye) of approximately 40 degrees