161–170 of 260 posts
There's a reason wikipedia classifies IMDB as an unreliable source. Apparently Michael Madsen has a real problem with people adding him to films in production in an effort to get financing. https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Michael-Madsen-Hates-IMD...
Ironically, Wikipedia is an unreliable source. I’ve given up making fixes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depend so. The amount of trust I want to give. By citing an obscure book I can judge the fact "hm, that book sounds obscure, why isn't there some other source?" and then decide how much weight I give to it. And if I don't have the book at hand I can identify the person who added the citation and can see what other edits they did to judge their domain knowledge.
No one does this. And Wikipedia myths spread to other media until it's hard to pinpoint where it started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s hilarious. Wikipedia classifies IMDB as unreliable because...anyone can edit its pages.
Wikipedia allows anyone to audit edits and raise issues if things are fishy. IMDb allows edits but the history is only visible to admins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia allows anyone to audit edits and raise issues if things are fishy. IMDb allows edits but the history is only visible to admins.
Me and my gang of companion editors, who have a long edit history going many years back (100% deleting content) shall revert your audits and reject your issues. There are 10 of us! You have no further questions. If you continue being disruptive you will be banned.
Reminds of this "Man fools security to backstage at a Peking Duk gig by changing the band's Wikipedia page to describe himself as a family member" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3345074/Man-fools-s...
Now imagine where he could get to if he had a high-vis vest and a clipboard
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seo is a fair play and I don't see why we are so quick to blame young people. It is Google that should be blamed for making themselves more important than they deserve to be.
Making up lies about yourself to make yourself look better than you really are is "fair play"?
Whenever we discussed frauds like that, I always said that we shouldn't think people (or Indians in particular) wanna game the systems and not everyone would act in malicious self beneficial ways, tricking systems like that. But: Whenever I held this position in our discussions, my indian friends smiled at me. They were the ones saying that you usually can't trust a bunch of people to follow rules there. That most would simply game the system for their own benefit. I tried arguing that this is probably the same for all human beings, if they just have the chance and live in a system where there are no (or little) consequences of doing this. They kept arguing that it's part of the indian mindset to just game systems like that, from state schemes, to work to anything. It's shocking how one nation can see themselves in such a negative way.
I still believe though that Swiss or Indians or whatever nation doesn't matter. Humans will game systems if the circumstances are right.
"Besides being an Actor, he tried his luck in acting and singing." I thought I was cross-eyed for a second, but it really says exactly that. [0] [0] reupload as substack URLS are daunting to say the least: https://jasper.monster/sharex/Ygg0w8VuhP.jpg