Trying to sow confusion amongst sources of truth. It fails again and again.
Phyllis Schlafly’s son is probably so, grrrr, mad that fElon has more money and more media coverage for his shitty knockoff of Wikipedia than Schlafly did for his shitty knockoff…
It should be called: The truth according to a pedofile South African apartheid Nazi that grifted a trillion dollars from the American taxpayer and should be writing this from the prison general population
Don’t forget pedo
Added thanks
I mean, you can download the whole thing at any time. Anyone can, including nasty cunts.
The tricky part is training it to forget all those pesky facts he doesn’t like. Because there’s going to be a lot of them.
The reason why Wikipedia is “woke” is because editors are smart, educated and not paid by massive corporations.
If you want to un-woke it, just get kids to write it, or Republicans (just don’t put the Republicans in a room with the kids)
💥 GOT’EM
Exactly what Microsoft did with Bing when Google Search took over.
Can he just stop his bs, let other people run his stuff and he can be at home in a k-hole pissing himself?
What is all this? The paypig paid, now they don’t need him anymore. Go home Elton
Just call it what it is. Plagiarism.
Wikipedia is one of the few treasures of the internet. He can go fuck himself
Along with the internet archive
I posted somewhere almost a year ago he was planning to rewrite Wikipedia using grok and some people commented that I was being paranoid. In before he takes down the official Wikipedia after grok finishes digesting it in a satisfactory manner. I mean the trump government will find some way to ban Wikipedia, I bet China is already lending expertise on how to state-control the American internet
No shit, that fat turd hasn’t had an original thought in his life
Cribbing means… ripping off? Copying?
Yep, did they not call a piece of paper you could copy off of during a test a crib sheet where you went to school? Or has that fallen out of use?
This is the first time I’m hearing it. I’m not exactly young…
Wikipedia to the rescue
And Harvard uses it as a verb
“Crib Notes”. Term used globally since the 60’s.
“Used globally since the 60s”
Then generates the biggest comment section in the thread. I’m also from the 60s but this one is new to me, and I’m pretty sure km from the globe even if the earth is now flat. And to be clear I’ve heard of crib notes but its the adaptation to cribbing that is me. Cribbing is part of cribbage.
First I’ve heard it used ever. Unless you mean “Cliff Notes”
No, that’s something different. Cliff notes is an actual notebook series of summaries of commonly taught literature and maybe other things. Crib notes is a literal cheat sheet for an exam.
Yeah. And that’s what we call it. A cheat sheet.
Correct. That is another term for crib notes.
I highly doubt it was used globally.
Also
“Crib notes” are short, condensed reference notes that summarize key points or essential information — basically a cheat sheet.
Also, upon looking into the term crib notes it appears that’s been used since the 1800s.
I lived in 4 English speaking countries in the 80’s, and it was definitely used everywhere. NA, SEA, and AU. All used that term.
I’ve heard cribbed and cribbing in aus (90s-00s school) but never knew the etymology!
Removed by mod
You sober, friend?
Globally? Are you sure? I’m from the 80s and I have never heard of that.
I heard it in the 80s-90s and come from the 70s. But my parents used it too I believe. At least they knew what the word was. They were form the early 1950s.
Friendly reminder that not everyone is American or in the anglosphere in general.
I’m not sure that’s an American thing as I’ve never heard of it. I assumed it was a European thing.
Cribbing in College Examinations. | News | The Harvard Crimson https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1885/10/31/cribbing-in-college-examinations-during-the/
Well, a UK thing maybe. In German it would obviously be a Spickzettel and spicken, respectively.
I am the official spokesman of the UK, never heard of it
I am the official spokesman of the UK, never heard of it
Oh man, you may need to turn in your Brit Card to the King. The term was likely born in Britain, and used as a central part of the UK’s success in WWII.
The usage “crib” was adapted from a slang term referring to cheating (e.g., “I cribbed my answer from your test paper”). A “crib” originally was a literal or interlinear translation of a foreign-language text—usually a Latin or Greek text—that students might be assigned to translate from the original language. The term “crib” originated at Bletchley Park, the British World War II decryption operation.
Like the office of Prime minister, the post of official spokesman is a revolving door and everyone leaves in disgrace
I’m American and I knew what it was, so it’s a thing here too.
Yeah, that’s why I asked. I didn’t want to assume
Nope, we called that a cheat sheet in Australia.
Likewise for copying, we called that copying.
Same in Canada. Crib is a card game. Cribbing is blocking that goes under heavy things or stuff that rolls to keep it stable or lifted.
Same in Canada. Crib is a card game. Cribbing is the blocks you put under big things you’re jacking up so it doesn’t come crashing down.
Well I’m going to start my own Wikipedia, with blackjack and hookers!
And ketamine?
I don’t even get how xitter stays online. Didn’t truth social take all their nutters?
Unfortunately the media, celebrities, and corporations still use that crap, so others do too.
Actually mainstream institutions still use it, including politicians. It’s beyond me how complacent elected officials are.
never once used it, anyone i knew personally who used it was kind of vapid, self obsessed, or had a crippling only fans addiction.
not my kind of joint, lol.
I made an account to stake out my name but never really used it. given the musk takeover though anyone with some cash can get whatever they want on their account.
Man Goebbels would be creaming his jeans if he knew of the propaganda potential that Musk and Trump have at their disposal.
I don’t understand what exact problem Grokipedia [1] is even trying to solve.
References
- Type: Text. Publisher: [Type: Article. Title: “Elon Musk’s version of Wikipedia is ‘cribbing’ information from the real one: report”. Author: “Robert Davis”. Publisher: “Raw Story Media, Inc.”. Published: 2025-10-27T22:23-05:00. Accessed: 2025-10-28T02:57Z. URI: https://www.rawstory.com/elon-musk-2674238153/.]. Location: ¶1.
[…]“Grokipedia”[…]
The ‘problem’ where Wikipedia doesn’t allow conservatives to edit in propaganda and disinformation as much as they’d like.
Look up anything Gaza related on Wikipedia. It used to change every 5 minutes.
Yeah, this exactly. It’s really hard to find actually credible sources for many of the rightwing “facts” they want to publish.
What do you mean? There are literally thousands of memes on Facebook, that back up every single claim. How is that not enough for you people? /s
You joke but their goal is to replace every institution with a ministry of truth. They’ve done it with the media, they’re doing it with government institutions that used to be independent and evidence based, and they won’t stop until they control all information.
I wonder if they allow Grok itself as a source
They feel it to be true. What more evidence do you need?
So basically what grok was trying to solve.
They have more influence on Wikipedia than people realize. Take note of how often wiki pages for famous people will say they are Jewish in the first two sentences.
Now trace the origin of these edits. Often it came from a username such as “OdinWolf88”. Now look at their edit history. These accounts do nothing but add “he/she is Jewish” to the first two sentences of peoples Wikipedia pages.
That and they troll the pages of right wing mass murders and terrorist attacks.
There is already the Conservapedia doing the same thing. It allows YouTube and Twitter as sources. I once saw a sentence like “liberals believe _______” and the source was a tweet with like 40 likes.
Again, that’s the point. That’s their angle. Dilute everything so you can’t tell what is factually accurate, and then you have kids reading this dumb shit and assuming it is true.
There is already the Conservapedia doing the same thing. […]
Interestingly, the site is timing out for me right now [1], but I’ve been able to find some interesting archived information: for example, they have a page titled “Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia” [2]. To say the least, I take issue with some of their rationale.
References
- Type: Anecdote (Screenshot). Accessed: 2025-10-29T03:51Z.
- Type: Archive (Webpage). Title: “https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia”. Publisher: “Internet Archive”. Published: 2025-08-06T17:43:23. Accessed: 2025-10-28T03:56Z. URI: https://web.archive.org/web/20250806174323/https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia#expand.
- Type: Meta. Published: 2025-10-29T03:57Z.
- This is presumed to be an official page as it was linked to from Conservapedia’s about page [3].
- Type: Meta. Published: 2025-10-29T03:57Z.
- Type: Archive (Webpage). Title: “https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About”. Publisher: “Internet Archive”. Published: 2025-09-09T00:19:42. Accessed: 2025-10-19T03:59Z. URI: https://web.archive.org/web/20250909001942/https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About.
- Type: Text. Location: ¶5.
For a few additional quick references about Conservapedia, please see: Conservapedia:Quick reference and How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia.
- Type: Text. Location: ¶5.
- Type: Anecdote (Screenshot). Accessed: 2025-10-29T03:51Z.
Years ago I saw a page on that site about irrational numbers that was pure comedy. Basically they begrudgingly admit that irrational numbers might actually exist (whatever that means for numbers), but heavily implied that it’s a liberal plot of some kind stemming from moral relativism or whatever. Just insane ramblings.
There are people out there fighting an insane uphill battle against not just the usual things you hear about - the young earth creationist denialism, the old earth creationist denialism, the moon landing denialists, the vaccine denialists, the moon landing denialists, the Holocaust deniers, and the spherical Earth denialists, there are also people doing whole podcasts where they try to deny things like quantum physics for similar ideological reasons…
Jan Irvin was this guy that seemed to kind of be out there on the fringe writing and talking about some rather fringe ideas related to the way in which xtianity began and interested in psychedelics, maybe somewhere on the left as far as ideology. Then, somewhere along the way, he seems to have done a turn [1], similar to the one Naomi Wolf did. Now he seems very much right-wing aligned, and at some point started cranking out lots of content about how Burning Man is some nexus of a deep state plot. Anyway, I seem to remember him cranking out lots of content railing against quantum physics, too.
Usually quantum physics serves as a crank magnet for all kinds of generally leftist kookery, but Jan seems to want to reject it outright for similar reasons that you talk about above with irrational numbers.
[1] One thing about the conspiracy theorists I’ve noticed is that they all tend to have similar character traits, mostly antisocial ones. They may align, for a time, with another conspiracy theorist, put out content together etc, but then, something or other happens, and they basically break up. And then they often won’t even mention persona non grata…and then they find a new set of boyfriends, and soon the cycle repeats. Jan seemingly had some kind of mental break and radical life changes (?) so his positions went very red pill. If Jan is still out there doing content, I don’t know if he’s still doing similar content or even running with the same crew.
It’s gotten to the point where now if someone links to YouTube, I’ll think they’re more likely to be wrong than if they just asserted it with no link. Because if it was true, it would probably have a better source.
Reality. They don’t like reality.
- Type: Text. Publisher: [Type: Article. Title: “Elon Musk’s version of Wikipedia is ‘cribbing’ information from the real one: report”. Author: “Robert Davis”. Publisher: “Raw Story Media, Inc.”. Published: 2025-10-27T22:23-05:00. Accessed: 2025-10-28T02:57Z. URI: https://www.rawstory.com/elon-musk-2674238153/.]. Location: ¶1.
