[8 / 3 / 1]
Quoted By: >>55833782 >>55833805 >>55833900
>Best known for is a spineless weasel word phrase best known for[by whom?] being the sole anonymous authority that Wikipedia jannies allow in their site. It is best known for being a vague and ambiguous crutch for bad articles.
>At the time of writing, there are approximately 141k Wikipedia pages that are best known for using this cowardly phrase.[1]
>Conflict with rules
>Putting "best known for" in an article is best known for being against Wikipedia's own rules as per a NPOV and AWW. This is best known for becoming comically self-evident when you read the example list of terms that conflict with AWW:
>some people say
>it is believed
>many are of the opinion
>most feel
>it is often reported
>it is widely thought
>it is often said
>X has been described as Y
>But apparently "best known for" is best known for being A-OK daijoubu...
>Best known for IP
>Wikipedia's article (warning: best known for being extremely biased): Best known for IP
>A prominent name in Wikipedia's list of so-called long-term abuse is a hero best known for being disparagingly called "Best known for IP" (BKFIP). This gigachad is best known for removing "best known for" in articles for ten years going.[2] And unlike other names in their "abuse" list, BKFIP isn't best known for being a troll. In fact, this is best known for being openly stated by the Wikipedia Ministry of Love as the biggest obstacle in its unjust conspiracy to remove him from history:
>The principal problem with this case is that most edits made by this user are best known for being good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits. This makes issues of conduct best known for being harder to enforce.[2]
>Wikipedia jannies are best known for claiming to have given him 3-month IP bans for the crime of removing he "best known for" in articles.[2] Why? According to them, his edit summaries are best known for being "snarky". As you'd read through the article, it becomes obvious that
>At the time of writing, there are approximately 141k Wikipedia pages that are best known for using this cowardly phrase.[1]
>Conflict with rules
>Putting "best known for" in an article is best known for being against Wikipedia's own rules as per a NPOV and AWW. This is best known for becoming comically self-evident when you read the example list of terms that conflict with AWW:
>some people say
>it is believed
>many are of the opinion
>most feel
>it is often reported
>it is widely thought
>it is often said
>X has been described as Y
>But apparently "best known for" is best known for being A-OK daijoubu...
>Best known for IP
>Wikipedia's article (warning: best known for being extremely biased): Best known for IP
>A prominent name in Wikipedia's list of so-called long-term abuse is a hero best known for being disparagingly called "Best known for IP" (BKFIP). This gigachad is best known for removing "best known for" in articles for ten years going.[2] And unlike other names in their "abuse" list, BKFIP isn't best known for being a troll. In fact, this is best known for being openly stated by the Wikipedia Ministry of Love as the biggest obstacle in its unjust conspiracy to remove him from history:
>The principal problem with this case is that most edits made by this user are best known for being good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits. This makes issues of conduct best known for being harder to enforce.[2]
>Wikipedia jannies are best known for claiming to have given him 3-month IP bans for the crime of removing he "best known for" in articles.[2] Why? According to them, his edit summaries are best known for being "snarky". As you'd read through the article, it becomes obvious that
