Time was you could just post one, but then all the teachers had to be like “Wikipedia isn’t a source” so society decided to say “fuck you, teach.”
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
58 points (91.4% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35211 readers
1488 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Easiest way is to die a noteworthy death
Aim for the volcano...
...or the bushes.
I'm not a doctor or lawyer or wiki moderator.
Depends on who you are.
If I wanted to, I could probably get an article about me on there within about a week — I know some editors, and have third party documentation of me on the Internet going back over 30 years. So I’d just have to ask someone to do a writeup, pointing to the notable things I’ve done.
However, I prefer anonymity so it’s unlikely I’d do that.
All it would take is one notable contribution to popular culture to get yourself added.
Easiest way to start if you’re an absolute Internet Nobody would be to get yourself written up by a local newspaper. Then do a bit of SEO so that popular online sites link to things about you and what you’ve done. Then get a few other people to start asking Wikipedia editors why they can’t find out anything about you on Wikipedia when you’re all over the Internet.
This is an interesting question but it also made me ponder something related. It makes sense for Wikipedia to focus on only notable people, but why not create a WikePeople or something that aims to be comprehensive about every person we can find information on? Or does something like this exist already?
Who's who
Facebook and LinkedIn sort of do this and they are complete shitshows.
Right but I was thinking with a similar rigor and citation system as with Wikipedia. So it’s pretty different in practice.
I see what you mean, I think. It would be convenient to be able to look people up in a modern equivalent of "Who's Who" in a central location, instead of trying to find people scattered all over the web. However, I wouldn't want to be on there myself, and would worry employers would make it mandatory. Some employers already reject candidates for having no social media.
A valid concern. I was more thinking it would be interesting if to have a comprehensive biographical database for people who have died. That way they won’t be forgotten as most people of the past have been. But I’m not sure how to create that without violating the privacy of the living.
With genealogy. But living people are [hidden].
It'll be the next ancestry.com !
This is, like, textbook dystopian. Most people value their privacy at least to some extent and probably wouldn't take kindly to being documented in a public central database largely outside of their control.
True I guess maybe it should be opt in although honestly I think online privacy isn’t going to be all that possible going forward. Depends on how strict the government wants to be but it’s pretty hard to control.
UIm I guess message the mods to let you become a poster or whatever and just write the living shit out of yourself. Then use words that link to others and boom you are golden.
You could try to get Jodie Foster to notice you in some newsworthy way.
You could assassinate Putin, you would even get a statue and a park in your name.
Start a band and do that until you get on the billboards, do an interview and casually eat leftovers out of a Tupperware while wearing a possum costume with a sash that says "John Locke was right" and refuse to elaborate.
Liberate East Timor.
End global climate change.
Become a YouTube sensation with your Vlogs detailing every load of laundry you do while singing dubstep remixes of Chinese translated Yugoslavian nursery rhymes.
Invade tik-tok with clips of you screaming at inanimate objects with googley eyes on them, they aren't even your real father.
Some of these suggestions are genuinely genius
There is a fine line between genius and insanity.
I always say I can walk that line no problem, but the arresting officer always disagrees.
End global climate change
I feel like you missed OP's word "easiest"
Sounds like a skill issue, kids these days don't want to do hard work.
You know all about death and equity, now the kids can learn about sweat equity.
Sweaquity?
That will come in handy due to all the warming their generation is just letting happen due to their poor work ethic.
Eat the Liberty Bell
I ate the Taco Bell. Is that good enough?
It’s probably a euphemism.
You know every Wikipedia user has a user page(s) they can put whatever they like on? It’s not in the article namespace, but if you just want to put info about yourself somewhere on Wikipedia that’s the easiest way.
Worth noting, however, that there are also rules on using one's user page as a promotional piece. It's much more loose obviously than the criteria for what goes in an article, but you absolutely will get smacked if you use your user page exclusively for advertising.
Commit a high profile crime.
Becoming a victim of one also works.
Yup that's the easiest!
Do something “Notable” then add yourself.
Notability seems key. I used to build a software project that was pretty well-known, but I was not. I had a page on Wikipedia for about an hour, I think. ;-)
also isn't there a rule you can't add your own page? even if you do something notable?.
The main problem with adding your own page is ensuring that the "no original research" rule is followed. In principle, everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable by third parties so they can check it. So if you write an article about yourself and say "Their dog's name is Chesterfield" there needs to be some kind of external source that other editors can use to check whether that's true. People writing about themselves often overlook that sort of thing. A classic example is a problem Philip Roth had trying to correct a Wikipedia article about a book he'd written, Wikipedia can't simply "take his word for it."
The other major problem is the "neutral point of view" rule. It's very difficult to write about yourself in a neutral manner so it's a safe assumption to scrutinize the neutrality of one's own edits about oneself very closely.
Probably the best way to go if you're notable is to ensure that you've got a detailed biography of yourself published somewhere and then point Wikipedia editors at it. And don't get possessive about your Wikipedia article, it's likely going to end up saying something you didn't want it to say and there's not a lot you can do about that if it's within their rules.
How would they know? Wikipedia doesn't require proof of identity to become an editor.
yeah I'm not sure but I remember a story about Wikipedia busting a company for making edits based on IP. but also it wouldn't be extremely hard to write a pages in yourself that was neutral point of view amd not using self published sources as you would unconsciously put in content from your recollection of events vs publishers accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons?wprov=sfla1
If it wasn't for this rule, Wikipedia could have become myspace.
Create it and cite publically available sources.
Wikipedia nerds are way too obsessive. They’ll delete it unless the person is noteworthy
There was a time when the page for list of serial killers had a banner on it asking users to expand it. That's one avenue.
Oh, I'm DEFINATELY one of those!!!
Yeah, fruit loops, cinnemon toast crunch, frosted flakes......hell, I'll even get down with some raisin bran, and kill that bowl!!!
.......is that not what we're talking about?