![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
that was actually worthwhile or funny (maybe the one about Paul Danan being the only man so rapey he'd actually tried to rape himself)?
It's a bit like writing puerile abuse on a toilet wall, just on a larger scale and more annoying.
( , Fri 29 May 2015, 11:35, Share, Reply)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
In the run up to a match between Man City and a tiny cypriot team called AC Omonia, someone edited the wiki entry to say the fans were called "The Zany Ones", wore hats made from shoes and sang about a little potato.
The Mirror ended up reporting it as fact, which gained some wonderful ridicule, but then some of the fans started doing it anyway.
( , Fri 29 May 2015, 11:48, Share, Reply)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Pictures of Walls is an ace website.
(The "creampie bitch" car also made me smile)
( , Fri 29 May 2015, 11:49, Share, Reply)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
was in tiny letters at the bottom of a cubicle door.
"If you can read this then you are shitting at 45 degrees"
( , Fri 29 May 2015, 11:52, Share, Reply)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
some mythical being who didn't know Blatter was a tosser?
( , Fri 29 May 2015, 12:43, Share, Reply)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
and the people who actually have to edit it.
( , Fri 29 May 2015, 15:26, Share, Reply)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
You can just view the discussion pages and compare the history to see if there is any kind of controversy or edit war. You can also click the links and have a look at the source materials.
If you use wikipedia for critical information, and you don't look at these pages, and you don't check veracity of source material, then you deserve to receive inaccurate information, and F grades for your work.
( , Fri 29 May 2015, 16:32, Share, Reply)