It took approximately an hour after Ozzy Osbourne died for every single Black Sabbath video on YouTube to be inundated with “R.I.P. Ozzy” comments.
There are a few famous anti abortion people that “cancelled” or “abandoned” some business or other thing. I’ll sometimes edit it to say, “aborted”.
The fuck does “nobody” add to this?
Hijacking top comment to add this relevant information:
Yeah, this meme would have made more sense of it went:
CELEBRITY:
*dies*
WIKIPEDIA EDITORS:
[]Nobody: Me: "This meme format makes no fucking sense!"POV: the meme when you don’t understand its format
<showing a non-POV picture>
Two possibilities.
1: It’s the calm before the storm. It implies nobody was egging this on. People were simply going on with their lives, when suddenly a thing happens. “Out of nowhere.” It’s a common trope both visually and in writing.
2: It makes autistic people mad.
Makes it a solution to a problem that didn’t exist.
Rustles the jimmies
It suggests that nobody talks in the past tense about people have that just died. Which is false, because we do.
It’s called a meme format, grandpa.
He knows, but a shitty one it is, son
Can someone help me complete this family tree?
MisterMoo --> tatann --> nialv7
I fucked nialv7’s mom, does that help? I was just trying to be helpful
We all were, son.
An incorrectly used one, sure.
In any of these “Nobody: “ memes you can crop that line and it changes very little. It’s a shit format imo.
Nobody:
Nobody at all:
Not one person in the history of the universe:
This guy: Stop adding unnecessary lines.
originally it was supposed to mean something being said or done unprompted. most people use it wrong so it doesn’t make sense. here for example, the prompt is in the caption. someone died. that’s the prompt. the use of was follows it logically.
the proper use of the meme would be something like:
Nobody:
Stephen King:
because he just says that shit unprompted, no one asks him about it, no one accuses or even suspects him being involved and suddenly, after years of criticizing orange mussolini, this happens to be the one time he supports him. that justifies the “nobody:” imo.
Good point, but it’s still an annoying meme format because of the nonsensical double negative on nobody saying nothing.
I know I’m alone on this hill, but I’ll die here.
you’re not alone at all… but double negatives are valid in many languages and English dialects.
There are so many bad meme usages now I just want to let the world burn because I’ll be dead soon.
It made sense when it was (originally) used properly. But no one ever uses it correctly anymore. And then they blame boomers for not understanding memes, as you see in this very thread a few comments up.
Wikipedia senior editor here to answer all your dumbest Wikipedia-related questions. Fire away.
Ozzy Osbourne’s death was first announced to UK media, first article i could find came from the BBC and released 8:11pm
how is it that a Wikipedia editor outsprinted the first article and made the first death edit at 8:08pm?
Some of it’s going to be down to a major news org like the BBC being much more careful to make sure he’s really dead. With Wikipedia, that’s a fuck-up, but almost anyone can make it, and it can easily be undone. With the BBC, that kind of fuck-up would haunt them for years. I’ve also read that Sky News may have been the first to confirm his death. Looking at that edit, the editor didn’t mention a source; they just "was"d him. Bad practice by Wikipedia’s standards but worked out in the end.
I think it’s a point of pride that we can be so up-to-date, but as a tertiary source, we rely on the credibility of secondary sources like the BBC to have any semblance of usability and order. I think we’re running different races, and we couldn’t run ours if they didn’t run theirs.
ahh fair alright, Sky News released a short article at 8:05pm
when looking for it it was difficult to dig through a billion copy pasted sources, half of which were paywalled or "tUrN oFf yOuR aDbLocK"walled :')
Obviously someone in the BBC was salty that he didn’t get to write the article on Ozzies death, so he quickly edited it in the Wikipedia so he could claim the “first” bragging rights.
what is still strange to me is that the BBC article was one of those coverages they do - where they update the page as new information flows in (or they just decide to say something more). and the first part of that at 8:11pm is just a short paragraph
Who gave you that rank? Do you get monies?
They’re based on edit count and not something meant to be taken seriously. It’s not a rank either; you don’t gain any meaningful status by having more edits. I don’t get any money.
Used it as a faux qualification here just to express that I’m experienced and qualified to answer dumb questions.
Ok, here goes another - are you aware that I’m gonna tag you a senior wikipedia editor on my lemmy app and thus gonna be reminded of who you really are each time I come across you?
who you really are
I don’t think this actually gives you additional insight into their life, lol. We still don’t know the important questions: Do they fart when they sit down? How many chinchillas do they own? What’s their favorite medieval weapon? If they could en passant in real life, when would they use it?
This is the guy that saved c/vegan on .world after the fiasco where the community basically imploded and moved to ML land. I’m not even a vegan (or vegetarian), but I know that :). Technician has done some Lemmy work.
If anyone deserves credit for saving the comm, it’d be @Sunshine@lemmy.ca. She doesn’t post there anymore owing to disagreements with
.world(now posting in other vegan comms), but for a long time, she was the beating heart of /c/vegan.Sorry for a second I confused sunshine and beaver and was gonna argue with you lol. I just remember you made a very sane first mod post there or I would have just blocked the community.
It’s a title given to Spanish editors I think.
You must have a script to make everything past tense when they kick the can, no?
Sometimes you’d think so. It’s actually more delayed than you’d think; major celebrities are often several minutes between major article publication and edit, when theoretically you could speedrun that kind of edit with a source in about two minutes from time of reading the article.
You might’ve seen this, but the editor who changed Henry Kissinger to “was” became such a social media phenomenon that day that her talk page was flooded with “congratulations”. An administrator (being responsible, tbf) had to step in and remove gravedancing, my own included.
Shame this kind of edit isn’t consistent or “Was%” would be a really fun speedrun. “Banned from Club Penguin%” energy.
I think it’s important that Wikipedia remain unbiased and factual.
It just happens to be a fact that kissinger’s death was worthy of celebration.
If a public figure dies and some people have good things and bad things to say about them, that is just life.
If a public figure dies and a significant and diverse segment of the population want to dance on their grave and fight over who gets to celebrate their death the most, then that sounds like something of historical significance to me.
Why did it take Wikipedia so long to add dark mode?
I’m going to refer you to Wikipedia’s newspaper The Signpost, but if there’s jargon in there that makes no sense, I can clarify. The TL;DR is that the skin Vector (2022) (an update from Vector (2010)) made the interface more flexible to customization, logged-out users could now have preferences, and Wikipedia’s design was all over the place after 20 years of largely decentralized development.
favorite edit you ever made?
I don’t have a specific favorite singular edit. If I did, it’d have to be the time I nominated ‘David Joyner (business executive)’ for deletion shortly after the killing of Brian Thompson. Whereas I could’ve waited for things to cool down, I didn’t want to politick. This circulated around BlueSky, well-meaning people who didn’t understand how we handle article inclusion brigaded the discussion, and some moron writing for Gizmodo accused me personally of being a paid CVS shill conspiring to hide Joyner’s name (despite the fact that this name was proudly displayed on CVS’ website as the first result in a search engine). The situation was just so stupid and made me lose some faith in Gizmodo’s ability to do basic research.
Favorite series of edits? Definitely the time in 2021 I started a good article review for the article ‘Marjorie Taylor Greene’ and it got so out-of-hand that I ended up overhauling the entire thing because I kept finding problems (well outside the scope of a GA review). I thought it was really good by the time I was done, and it was really satisfying reading an article where MTG bitched at some local rally about her Wikipedia article – a sign I’d done something right.
These two examples aren’t representative of my edits at all.
How do you feel about the Foundation using most of the money on things that are Wikipedia and then making highly misleading statements when they do fundraising drives on Wikipedia?
most of the money on things that are Wikipedia
Assuming you meant “aren’t Wikipedia”, there are a few aspects to this.
- These are the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2024 financial statements.
- You can see how it’s organized here.
- Here’s a table of salaries. CEO Katherine Maher’s salary is about $790,000, which is very average for this role. Other salaries look average as well.
- I permanently hide donation drive banners in my preferences and so can’t speak to how they’ve been lately (read: last 8-ish years). I remember them being terrible. Genuinely hated them.
- Wikimedia is a lot bigger than just the English Wikipedia; it’s a movement, and one that’s been highly successful in a way it couldn’t have been just through volunteer work. For example, I heavily encourage you to check out Wikipedia’s sister projects sometime. Not all of them are created equal, but Wiktionary for example to me is the best single dictionary in the world. I wish many of these received similar levels of appreciation to Wikipedia. And far from being tacked-on side projects, most of these factor into a coherent ecosystem in their own way.
- The WMF’s legal team in my eyes especially has been phenomenal. The movement I volunteer so many hours for would be heavily fractured and probably dead in the water if it weren’t for them.
- On top of obvious things like developing MediaWiki, I actively want the WMF to be doing outreach through programs like grants. If the WMF just sits by and coasts on hosting costs and maybe MediaWiki bug fixes, it will die. Figuring out how to make editing more inviting, more accessible, and more efficient is crucial not just to keeping Wikipedia alive but its sister projects and even to improving other non-WMF wikis.
In summary, I don’t like the banners but have seen zero issue with how they handle finances. The money donated that’s used beyond maintaining a skeleton crew and keeping the lights on is profoundly useful to me as an editor and directly helps me write the articles that the people donating expect their money to go to.
That hat has a tiara on it.
had
Why are they bending back like that?
It’s a quick-draw stance to minimize motion, I believe.
I assume to dodge the oncoming bullet from the other side of the duel
Hard to find one of these places that still let you shoot at each other nowadays. :)
Try pissing off a cartel
matrix style of course
Angling the holster so that it’s already pointing at the target when it clears the waist
Do reduce the angle they have to rotate the gun.
”I strap my gun onto my hip
When I dip, you dip, we dip.”Removed by mod
