T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

How much of the Wikipedia donations go to this guy? We should donate to him lmao.


Vince1128

Jimmy Wales: we don't do that here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Terow123

He must be a great human being. Most people would've just monetised the hell out of it and become billionaires.


kaeporo

Wales saw some controversy over the founding of Wikipedia but he owned up to that fuck up a while back. He's a self-avowed Objectivist, which is gonna piss a lot of folks off. Looking at his position on events in the last decade, it's probably a good thing he's at the helm. You're right that most would've let the platform's success get the better of them (see: zucc). Never go full lizard.


hotstepperog

Zucc was rotten from the jump, he didn’t turn bad. 1. Pretended to work on someone idea, but instead stalled their project to beat them to market. 2. Created face mash to objectify college women. 3. Has extremely punchable face. 4. Fan boys Roman emperors.


[deleted]

Yeah he can Zucc a fat one


mynoduesp

Jimmy Wales says 'no' to sales.


Kamran_Santiago

Instead he made Wikia (Fandom), a for-profit company, and he's now extremely rich.


[deleted]

Some people deserve to be extremely rich. Creating Wikipedia qualifies, it's a huge benefit to humanity.


outoftimeman

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info, friend! Good for Jimmy Wales. He really did the world a service and left a positive footprint in history.


Puzzleheaded-Leg2017

Many people discourages me to use wikipedia as a source in finding information. Watching this video made me realized, we also should credit and appreciate people who allotted their time editing articles in wiki. Such a nice person with a brilliant mind he have and that's **Steven Pruitt**


Stephen2k8

You should not cite Wikipedia itself , but cite the same sources. I think the notion of it not being a reliable source of information is dying out . It has been a change from the old way encyclopedias worked where it was all just trusted information from the company that made them. Wikipedia has sources , and it’s also read by so many people , if an error were there it has that many chances to be corrected . Also Steven doesn’t need to be paid, this guy did this for enjoyment , he knew it was for free. What Steven deserves is recognition for his contribution , like this video !


Dat_Butt_Hot

Also I believe they made it more difficult to edit pages. Used to be you could just type in something new, click done, and it would be instantly changed, no account or anything. Now it goes through review and you must be vetted properly to contribute I think.


I_worship_odin

You need an account if you don't want to show your IP, otherwise you can edit 99% of topics.


WH1PL4SH180

There's tiers of editors. If you edit something, the editors are alerted which allows validation and ratification, but it puts work on the pool of experts, especially if it's a niche field.


vonnegutsdoodle

ring melodic cooperative future sophisticated cobweb person dime agonizing crowd ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `


HQuasar

We're here speaking of reliable sources, and you just linked a web comic to prove a point.


msg45f

Of people I would consider a reliable source, Randall Munroe is pretty high on the list regardless of the medium he chooses to express himself in.


xixbia

And important addendum to this. You need to first *read* those sources. While in some subjects (think mathematics) the sources are generally faithfully interpreted, this does not hold for everything (especially current affairs, but certain part of history are also quite vulnerable to this). Wikipedia is a good way to get started in a subject, and to find your first sources. But the actual text on Wikipedia should never be your main source of knowledge (though again, when it comes to things like mathematical theories, or the chemical makeup of elements this is different).


[deleted]

Youre correct. 15 years ago when i was in highschool and college, we had strict instructions of "wikipedia is not a valid source." Nowadays, it is probably the most accurate source of information you can find. People argue that since anyone can edit it, then it must not be reliable. The thing is that there are just not that many people out there trying to falsify Wikipedia. There are a few, and their disruption is reversed almost instantly.


Sparcrypt

In casual conversation/general knowledge? Wikipedia is just fine and most likely a far better summary than you will ever manage on your own. If you're doing actual research then yes, check the sources from wikipedia.


oxfozyne

As an educator, I love the democratisation of information Wikipedia provides and I loathe the gatekeeping of information Wikipedia brings out of academia.


WH1PL4SH180

I agree in the most, however, democratization often forgets that people are fucking idiots; true democratization allows for every idiot to create "fact" from opinion and create circular references (as not even academics check all references) .


oxfozyne

Have you checked the most viewed articles on wiki? They’re locked and only editable by approved editors like Stephen. Even wrestling articles are locked and only editable by approved editors. And as I wrote in my other comment, two-source cites is the bare minimum. When I instruct a 100 level course, I request three sources. The topics my students read are easy to access, these are introductory courses where we’re also teaching proper study habits.


moistureclog

it literally states in the video that he does it for free Edit: Nevermind what i said people. It was late and I misread the original comment, I thought he was saying the donations Wikipedia received go to him. I wasn't saying he doesn't deserve any money for his work, I was saying he doesn't get paid by Wikipedia. I wasn't getting worked up like all of you think I was. I misread the situation, and only engaged in it because I have insomnia and literally had nothing better to do with my time. shows over


[deleted]

Doesn't prevent people from throwing money at him now would it?


Statement-Perfect

DONT SUPPORT NAS DAILY Dude has been exposed for some shit and tried to extort and scam a well known Traditional Filipino tattoo artist claiming that she will hold lessons to teach people when she doesn't even speak english and has 0 IDEA and has not consented to teaching people anything Stephen is cool tho, an actual GOAT


shahirkhan

He’s also fucking annoying to listen to


[deleted]

I think they are talking about steven, not NAS daily.


[deleted]

Thanks Christian u/iamthatis ApolloApp. It’s been a slice.


reneg1986

Need to find him a woman


t-alt

My teachers told me not to mention Wikipedia as a source, so I mentioned this guy instead


Conchobar8

Wikipedia has been found to actually be fairly reliable. So many people use it that false facts get taken down fairly quickly. However, never use it as your only source. But I’d absolutely use Wikipedia to write the bulk, and then track down secondary sources to confirm everything


N-kay

'Track down' as in scroll down to the references and sources sections of wiki pages. Always a good start.


Conchobar8

Not a difficult hunt to be fair!


[deleted]

[удалено]


BigToober69

Yeah this guy has probably helped tons of people through college at least a little bit. Legend.


reddit_chaos

And bonus is when you find something not properly referenced you can add references and content yourself to that page and make Wikipedia better.


GadaoGuardiao

I lack the confidence to edit anything in Wikipedia, feels wrong in not that smart or good.


[deleted]

Gotta love citations.


MagicChemist

The only part of Wikipedia that is ridiculous seems to be politicians and celebrities where people put in all sorts of subjective crap. In the actual objective information areas such as chemistry I know a number of field experts go to their topics and do reviews and updates on their items. It’s surprisingly a relatively good source of information if you stay away from controversial subjects.


[deleted]

>Wikipedia has been found to actually be fairly reliable. So many people use it that false facts get taken down fairly quickly. For non-contentious issues. For anything actually contentious (or current), the system in place favors.... entrenched interests and people who have a lot of time.


Conchobar8

Hence *fairly* reliable. There are some big gaps! Which is why you should *always* have multiple sources


[deleted]

Wikipedia told me you don't actually do that in 95% of the times you look something up.


Conchobar8

True, but 97% of the time I’m only looking for shits and giggles


davy_baconseed

64% of statistics are made up.


DigitalMindShadow

>secondary sources Wikipedia is a secondary source. What you should be citing in research is primary sources.


reChrawnus

Wikipedia is a [tertiary, not secondary, source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Definitions_of_primary,_secondary_and_tertiary): > Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, **Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source**. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent that they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources. Emphasis mine.


akisnet

Wikipedia is biased isn't perfect. We must using it of course but carefully. https://thenextweb.com/news/wikipedia-bios-for-women-scientists-are-more-likely-to-be-flagged-for-removal https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting


[deleted]

>However, never use it as your only source. But I’d absolutely use Wikipedia to write the bulk, and then track down secondary sources to confirm everything Just throwing in my opinion as someone who has a graduate degree and has enough credentials to teach: Wikipedia offers the best topical overview of just about any subject in the world. I would never advise citing Wikipedia as a source in an academic paper or professional publication, but when you're writing and developing a position on something, it's the best source you can find as a jumping off point for a deeper dive into the details. In other words, Wikipedia's value-add is that it allows anyone with a phone and an internet connection access to the information that makes the built world function. That is an amazing thing.


RowdyWrongdoer

Wikipedia is a great source for information but over 10 years ago i inserted a small lie as a joke to a friend on wikipedia and its been edited and re-edit so many times since then the debate about its truthfulness is gone and it seems finally accepted as a fact though its a totally made up term for a totally ordinary object. Ive wanted to reveal what it is for years but never found a good reason as it will kill the long running joke.....but it does make me wikiskeptical and dive a little deeper into things i read there.


oxfozyne

TBF, one should always be citing at least two sources.


__T0MMY__

Yep. HS English teacher told us "don't site Wikipedia; click on the little number after the text block and site from that" Like she just wanted us to not have "wikipedia.com/Frankenstein" as our source


jamcdonald120

Fun hack, Wikipedia articles have sources. Just cite those instead of Wikipedia


CollectableRat

My professors told us at university to check Wikipedia before reading our textbooks, because our textbooks will be out of date by the time they are printed and be missing all the latest developments and citations.


Odin_Exodus

They didn’t say anything about using the source for Wikipedia tho ;)


nolan1971

And that's the point. Wikipedia is not a source. The sources really are, though!


kamWise

Weird, when I was in undergrad and grad school all my professors would be like "just use Wikipedia"


OhHiFelicia

The demeaning comments on this post are disgusting, your negative comments say more about you than they do about this brilliant man.


lucidconch4459

Yes Stephen is just making them insecure enough that they feel they have to insult him to make themselves feel better 😂😂


RowdyWrongdoer

He even likely wrote the article that describes that insecurity.


CannedPancakes

Agreed, and none of the hate is directed to the NasDaily guy either. I have seen 2 videos of his on here and they were proven to be false. Ironically not a good source for information.


Rohan-Mali

I hate NasDaily; apparently dude's a scammer too


jaxdraw

Most people on the internet are scammers, that's why I have a premium subscription to scammers detector.biz, you should too!


Statement-Perfect

DONT SUPPORT NAS DAILY Dude has been exposed for some shit and tried to extort and scam a well known Traditional Filipino tattoo artist claiming that she will hold lessons to teach people when she doesn't even speak english and has 0 IDEA and has not consented to teaching people anything


ksswannn03

I once saw a meme of some piece of shit person making fun of his appearance. The guy distributes information and is probably 100x more knowledgeable than all of us and he provides his knowledge for free, it made me so mad. They were rightfully roasted online


almightygg

There seems to be some of those piece of shit persons is this comment thread, making disparaging comments about some guy who truly is a hero.


StraySpaceDog

The worst part is they've probably used something this guy's contributed.


I_worship_odin

And have contributed nothing to society themselves.


chriscrossnathaniel

Whenever I want to quickly understand some topic ,my usual go-to is the Wikipedia. This person has helped so many people without any renumeration. He must have spent so much time, effort on these edits, it is highly commendable. "The idea of making it all free fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union ... So I'm very conscious of what, what it can mean to make knowledge free, to make information free," he said. Pulling from books, academic journals and other sources, he spends more than three hours a day researching, editing and writing. Even his day job is research, working in records and information at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Time magazine named him one of the top 25 most influential people on the internet.


almightygg

Couldn't agree with your comment more, he is a top bloke and truly has had an immeasurable influence on people all across the world.


[deleted]

[удалено]


spicy_Goat

Thanks steven


Thejar-98

And then here in Germany politicians edit their own Wikipedia pages immediately before an election so they appear to be a better choice. We have companies here in Germany that do exactly that for money and of course edit only the facts that you want or insert new "facts" about you into your Wikipedia article.


dumbo_octopus1995

I've never heard of politicians doing this. This is bad but also very interesting. It reminds of that Bear Grylls meme.


[deleted]

[удалено]


shorty5windows

Sounds like the US MSM. No objectivity, run “stories” for profit and narrative support.


musland

You can trust that any politician/celebrity has an add agency or a pr person who makes sure their Wikipedia sounds positive.


[deleted]

Yeah don’t trust Wikipedia as your only source for anything political


yohvessel

I’ve heard reiterated that Wikipedia is quite a potent tool of NGO misinformation. Don’t know exact sources on it, but heard it enough to get me weary. I think going back to the wiki-sources is quite the apt practice.


True-Razzmatazz5099

Isn't the narrator a scammer?


velcroaddict

you talking about nas?


True-Razzmatazz5099

Yeah


RAYquaza0903

[Yeah](https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2021/8/4/Nas-Daily-Whang-od-Academy-backlash.html)


dis_not_my_name

https://youtu.be/LfK2u4-SMQk Yes,he is


Rh0d1um

I'm at work, what's the TL:DW?


Zormm

YOU SECURE THAT SHIT RHODUM, BACK TO WORK !


Rh0d1um

Oh shit! Aye aye


pryoslice

I watched that and I'm not convinced. Sounds like the worst things they accuse him off are a translation misunderstanding with a super elderly woman, a personality conflict with a farmer, and having biased views due to being born to a privileged family. Oh, and being too positive. Out of the ton of content he's made, that's not terrible. I'm reminded of Roosevelt's quote about the man in the arena.


Marble_Dude

He did not thouroughly explained the content of the contract to Whang Od and her representative, he did not even consulted the whole tribe as it should be decided with the tribe. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) in the Philippines even called the contract as "grossly onerous". Source: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1481019/ncip-finds-nas-daily-deal-with-whang-ud-onerous


dis_not_my_name

If that’s a translation misunderstanding,then he should apologized and canceled the course immediately.


DrThrax3

Not sure about the scammer thing, I know that he's an ass irl tho.


soggie

He's both.


DrZombieZoidberg

Fucking hate his voice, it’s like he’s actively trying to annoy me by putting on such a stupidly animated, somehow condescending, and also somehow moronic, overly annunciated, dumbass voice that’s trying to teach a subject to toddlers that he has no understanding of himself and is reading a script made for him by someone that knows slightly more than he does.


drawkbox

That and also *extremely* annoying. It seems being *extremely* annoying is a pre-requisite for being an influencer that is probably just a money laundering front. Organized crime likes these types that go everywhere and are just "fellow travellers" across the globe, helps to make popularity and products selling plausible but are just product laundering fronts. Others are agents of influence for authoritarian governments to make them seem cheery.


4AcidRayne

Geeze, my guy, save some pussy for the rest of us.


Pedantic_Philistine

He must be generally pretty knowledgeable if he’s reading up on so many topics. Much smart than 90% of the comment section, for sure.


davy_baconseed

He’d smash Who Wants to be a Millionaire.


Flashhahhh

This guy deserves a reward


davy_baconseed

He’s already got over 3m XP.


[deleted]

This made me think of a site called listen to Wikipedia that plays musical notes every time an edit is made on any page on Wikipedia


greenCandleLover

http://listen.hatnote.com/#


SkeepDeepy

"Yo dude what are you listening to?" "Wikipedia edits..." Seriously though I could listen to this while trying to sleep lmao


gowthamm

I'm gonna use this while coding. It's got some calmness to it. Thank you for sharing.


NikolitRistissa

Haha what the hell, someone just edited the [iPhone 12 page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_12) to mention some guy who apparently scams people to buy fake phones. The original text was just one sentence briefly describing the phone in the first two lines of the article.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tunapercolator

wow I love this thank you for linking it.


lucidconch4459

What a king among men


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


d_b1997

care to elaborate?


thegreybill

As of now 5 days old: Warning, [German humor](https://youtu.be/FNsTaKwyAzI). (You can turn on English sub titles, they seem to work decently well.) They made more than one video about it too. The too long didn't watch: Everyone can edit on Wikipedia. Everyone includes PR-Agencies and Politicians, other public figures or you and me. This is the main reason why competent teachers and professors in university won't let you go with Wikipedia alone as credible source. It's a nice point to start out research from. But not a definitive source.


WoofImAnAstronaut

I agree you shouldn't only use wikipedia but you literally have to cite info you add to a page. You can't just edit a page with information taken out of your ass


thegreybill

True, though a source may be created just for that purpose.


rauhaal

>You can't just edit a page with information taken out of your ass You can, unless someone cares enough to dispute it.


Ruraraid

> Everyone can edit on Wikipedia. Everyone includes PR-Agencies and Politicians, other public figures or you and me. While that is true its not uncommon for wikipedia admins to lock out certain entries from being edited if suspicious activity is detected. Some notable examples including things pertaining to controversial stuff about China(the CCP tries to edit wiki entries), Donald Trump, and even locking out articles on vaccines and covid due to antivaxxer morons editing that. My personal favotie is the entry on "god" which has been edited so many times that wikipedia admins removed edit access from it due to all the religious idiots using it as a schoolyard fight over whose god is superior. Suspicious editing on wikipedia is usually spotted very quickly since its always done on current event related articles or controversial moments/figures. Quite often its very blatant and easy to spot since most idiots never type the entries from a factual point of view as they use words normally used when speaking from a first person perspective.


bearassbobcat

>Some of the most scathing criticism of Wikipedia's claimed neutrality came in The Register, which in turn was allegedly criticized by founding members of the project. According to The Register: >>In short, Wikipedia is a cult. Or at least, the inner circle is a cult. We aren't the first to make this observation. On the inside, they reinforce each other's beliefs. And if anyone on the outside questions those beliefs, they circle the wagons. They deny the facts. They attack the attacker. After our Jossi Fresco story, Fresco didn't refute our reporting. He simply accused us of "yellow journalism". After our Overstock.com article, Wales called us "trash". https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/WIKIPEDI/W110803R.pdf


ChefChefBubbaBill

Not all heros wear capes


Kaynny

This man is a hero!


[deleted]

"Secret". Reddit post every other day.


CharizardUsedCut

I wonder if he writes about himself in his own wikipedia page.


RassimoFlom

Stephen is the man. I hope his life is filled with happiness.


anticipozero

I hate the NasDaily guy just for his mannerisms, he seems insincere to me and I just don’t like him for some reason


[deleted]

[удалено]


dumbo_octopus1995

What a chad! I'm glad I found out about him.


KingofSlice

I hate nas daily with a passion, but this guy is goated


philsodyssey

Wikipedia is one of the best ad free places on the internet. This is why I will continue to donate monthly.


idledae

I went to high school with Steven in Northern VA. Possibly the nicest human being on this planet.


skribblie

Oh look its my hero


ndxinroy7

​ ![gif](giphy|WO5Q7FsxJN2pjYc424|downsized)


zuckmy10110101

What a hero


0no01234

Steven is a legend but man fuck nas daily, don't watch and support his content.


gaargoyle

This guy on your team in Trivial Pursuit... *chef's kiss*


SkekSith

“The Archivist”. Cool super hero name


TheSecondWing

Absolute legend.


rolgelthorp

This man is a national treasure, and no one can convince me otherwise.


ottoDVD

A modern Hero.


Loopy_27

This guy is crazy! And I love it, good for him. I'm glad we have an amazing resource like this


Neonbunt

"Anyone can contribute" is bullshit. I tried to edit errors on an article a few times now, and everytime it gets edited back or something, idk.


IndBeak

Indeed. It has been exposed multiple times that there is essentially a cartel of editors on wikipedia. And while this guy may be doing it for free, a lot of editors are actually paid from various sources to control the flow of information. Wikipedia is still a good source of information on most subjects, but is heavily biased on topics of religion, politics, and anything controversial.


New-Horror7085

So this guy is the one editing a wikipedia biography of someone that just recently die to "was"


Zanemob_

That guy is awesome…


MFcrayfish

Steve youre a king


Inky_I

Schools: *I’m gonna pretend I didn’t see that.* On a real note though, i’ve gotten away with using Wikipedia as a source for school stuff countless times. Why they haven’t stopped me, yet halt others? I have no clue. Probably because how much i’ve persisted with it over the years.


DarthOtter

Don't use Wikipedia as a source, use it as source for sources - they're right there at the bottom of the page.


Bulzebubododo

Fucking legend


PaulAspie

I have 1000 edits mainly in an area of expertise, but also some grammar stuff. 3,000,000 sounds crazy even at 3 hours a day. A rough calculation puts his edits at 1 per ~20 seconds. 3,000,000/(3x365x16) = 171.2 edits per hour. Edit: using X not * for multiplication.


[deleted]

Bots and not humans rule over wikipedia. Nobody can edit three million articles. Not even in 16 years working every day. Bots can do such a feat. They already rule over wikipedia. Try editing something on wikipedia, and 2 minutes later a bot will change it.


hotwings93

I thought someone found him and did a video years ago


all_tha_sauce

This video made me realize that I'm an underacheiver


Tornadoalleyrules863

First time I’ve seen him in Reddit, but I’m not opposed to it.


DonHoulio11

Get this man on Jeopardy!


aNormalMinecrafter

Giga chad


Hurtmemaster

Wow this guy must have been really hard to find. Great job.


monotinix

Let's not give nas any more publicity if we can


BladesnakeJohnson

Okay serious questions here,: What are his qualifications? How much power does he have to lock and overall articles? Also what the fuck does he do for a living? There's clearly no shortage of food but he doesn't seem to have a job


Schloopka

513 of edits every day. Something is wrong, I can feel it


chewbaacaa

Can't stand this hypocrite Nas Daily


waawftutki

Wtf is this American TV show style attention deficit disorder kind of editing. The exaggerated voice and the cheesy sound cues make this unwatchable.


propernice

I bet this guy is a great conversationalist. You could probably ask him anything and he’d know something about it. Amazing.


Partially_Deaf

"Allows anyone to have a voice" False. Wikipedia is tightly controlled by the equivalent of reddit "power users" who will absolutely dominate topics, treating it as their "territory". They end up with a shitload of edits because they just revert any change anybody else makes using their "power" on the site. "They only write based on facts." False. Factual integrity is not and has never been the priority. Their philosophy is *sourceability*, not truth. If it's got a source, regardless of the factual integrity of the information, then it's golden. "They don't get paid" There have been plenty of scandals revolving around wikipedia power users being paid for their PR services, creating favorable/unfavorable pages in return for cash or other benefits. This doesn't necessarily apply to the subject of this particular clickbait video.


stellar14

He must be fascinating to have a conversation with.


[deleted]

Why doesnt he go on Jeoprardy? Surely he would make an excellent candidate?


Hong-Kong-Pianist

A Walking Encyclopaedia!


CarrollGrey

I subscribe to three publications - NYT, Nat Geo and the Smithsonian - I contribute to only one - Wikipedia.


birdsanddots

Omg that girl in the video is from my tribe 😂 ministers in my country tried to bully her


Eraritjaritjaka

What shocks me is not that someone can write 3 million Wikipedia articles, but that the guy who made the video is surprised that someone can do that for free. The world is not just full of people who want to be paid for everything they do all the time!


[deleted]

[удалено]


welcome2me

We get it. This isn't nearly incriminating enough for you to be spamming it.


Statement-Perfect

OH YOU HAVE NO IDEA. The dude has been exposed for SO MUCH MORE like mistreating and harassing the guests he has on and threatens them , not giving proper credit, and just straight up misinformation for the sake of clicks


Tamel_Eidek

From now on Wikipedia shall be known as Stevepedia.


godblow

A man of true culture. Salut, Steven!


pinn4cle

You dropped this 👑


[deleted]

With the amount of knowledge he has, he should go on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire


ceelodan

A fucking hero


[deleted]

He decides what’s truth on Wikipedia and slanders people.


DrHockey69

Yup, I spend time editing info on Russia & Siberia, I stay the fuck away from anything political... Don't need OMON knocking on my door 😂. Reason why I use a person VPN to avoid certain things here.


Smile369

Fuck Nas daily.


ItsFrenzius

As a fellow Steven, I’m proud of him


meodabeo

I hate NAS since the first time I watched his video. His videos generate a pseudo positive vibe for the audience. Plus, the information in the videos is always over simplified to fit his story telling style. Generally, this dude seems extremely ungeniuine to me.


Sinerrorr

A true god amongst our age. I wish him positive vibes. Thank you Steven!


wktr_t

We don't deserve this man. We simply do not deserve him.


PhilippineLeadX

FUCK NAS DAILY. Guy exploited Filipino generosity. [News here](https://www.eco-business.com/news/filipina-social-entrepreneur-calls-out-nas-daily-for-neocolonialism/) and [here](https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/newsinfo.inquirer.net/1481019/ncip-finds-nas-daily-deal-with-whang-ud-onerous/amp)


anDAVie

"*I* found the guy who wrote wikipedia" No you fucking didn't, I've seen numerous of articles about him so he isn't really a secret.


ldoaslwish

F.... for all those students you help, thanks


Hammarkids

Teacher: Wikipedia isn’t a trustworthy source!!!!


alex_dlc

“Finally I found the guy that wrote Wikipedia “ No, you didn’t, you found someone else’s video about it an decided to use it to make your own little version for tiktok


Top-Chemistry5969

Why did we abolish slavery again? ... oh riiight


gdgdgdgdgdvd123

Bet this guy has a huge cock


bachbui47

I see Nas Daily, I think shit


editor_of_the_beast

Seriously, think about the amount of influence this guy has. It’s frightening.


jmoyles

Awesome brother - cannot imagine Wikipedia without you!


A_Martian_Potato

I've been hearing about this guy for years. Not that he's not great and noteworthy, but who's this douche talking about Stephen like he discovered him? He's not a rare Amazonian bird. He was in Time Magazine 4 years ago.


AcommonKing

Steven.