How did they get Andre 3000 to do a Kesha song

How did they get Wayne & TI on this together

What was the purpose? Did they think it was really about to crossover?

s*** like this was popular at the time

I mean Wayne, TI, Wiz, and Andre on a remix is insane. For that artist of all artists??

It’s like Drake, Kendrick, Jay-Z, and DaBaby doing an Olivia Rodrigo remix

At the time Wayne, TI, and Wiz all make sense but the Andre feature is so random

André 3000 is featured on an official remix of the song, released digitally on January 18, 2011. Kesha explained to Rap-Up how she got him to record a verse for the song: "I sent him the track and was fully aware that he’s only been on a few songs in the past five years. But he ended up liking it. We got on the phone, and he said, ‘With a flow like that, you could definitely have a career as a rapper.’ It was the biggest compliment I’ve ever had. It was coming from a god!" She further elaborated that André 3000 is "one of my favorite musicians, lyricists, rappers, of all time."

After the release of the original remix with André, Kesha and co-producer of the track, Luke, decided that they wanted to remix the track again with the intention of adding some of Kesha's desired future collaborations. The first to add their verses to the track was Lil Wayne. Kesha and Wayne both happened to be in the studio on the same day as each other and she took the opportunity to ask him if he would participate in the remixing of the song. Following this Wiz Khalifa and T.I. were then asked to collaborate on the track. All three rappers agreed to write and appear on the song and with this the remix was completed. According to Kesha, the four rappers on the remix, titled "Sleazy Remix 2.0: Get Sleazier", are included because they are four of her favorite rappers. On December 7, 2011, she posted the following message on the internet, revealing that the song would be released exclusively to iTunes on December 13, 2011: "Get ready to get even $leazier with this sick collaboration I did with 4 of my favorite MCs of all time: Weezy, André 3000, Wiz Khalifa, and T.I., I opened the ‘Get $leazy’ tour with this song every night and it always got the party started ... Get ready, this is the SICKEST and SLEAZIEST version YET.$."

Has no one ever heard of Wikipedia, literally explains it all

it was normal u had to be there

I mean Deuces basically a Hip-Hop song by a black guy. This a pop song by a white woman who got all these top names rappers.

G mix!

this is the new gen mega mix

@idkICantPick

maybe they genuinely f***ed with Ke$ha at the time and wanted to hop on it. not everything is hilarious. We can put as many clapdeads as we want but Dr. Luke is probably set for life due to tracks like this

Andre 3000 has great taste and could see that Kesha made amazing pop music

The first Kesha album is a classic don't see why it's funny

School told me Wikipedia not a reliable source

U can check the references they use for things

how reliable is wikipedia you ask?

The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and veracity of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition. It is written and edited by volunteer editors who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. Wikipedia carries the general disclaimer that it can be "edited by anyone at any time" and maintains an inclusion threshold of "verifiability, not truth". This editing model is highly concentrated, as 77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors, a majority of whom have chosen to remain anonymous. The reliability of the project has been tested statistically through comparative review, a***ysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in its editing process. The online encyclopedia has been criticized for its factual reliability, principally regarding its content, presentation, and editorial processes. Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results, with findings varied and inconsistent. Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has improved over time; it has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.A South American coati. In July 2008, a then-17-year-old student added an invented nickname to the Wikipedia article coati as a private joke, calling them "Brazilian aardvarks". The false information lasted for six years and was propagated by hundreds of websites, several newspapers, and even books by a few university pressesSelect assessments of its reliability have examined how quickly vandalism – content perceived by editors to constitute false or misleading information – is removed. At the start of each university year, we ask first-year students a question: how many have been told by their secondary teachers not to use Wikipedia? Without fail, nearly every hand shoots up. Wikipedia offers free and reliable information instantly. So why do teachers almost universally distrust it?Wikipedia has community-enforced policies on neutrality, reliability and notability. This means all information “must be presented accurately and without bias”; sources must come from a third party; and a Wikipedia article is notable and should be created if there has been “third-party coverage of the topic in reliable sources”.Wikipedia is free, non-profit, and has been operating for over two decades, making it an internet success story. At a time when it’s increasingly difficult to separate truth from falsehood, Wikipedia is an accessible tool for fact-checking and fighting misinformation.
Why is Wikipedia so reliable?Many teachers point out that anyone can edit a Wikipedia page, not just experts on the subject. But this doesn’t make Wikipedia’s information unreliable. It’s virtually impossible, for instance, for conspiracies to remain published on Wikipedia.For popular articles, Wikipedia’s online community of volunteers, administrators and bots ensure edits are based on reliable citations. Popular articles are reviewed thousands of times. Some media experts, such as Amy Bruckman, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s computing centre, argue that because of this painstaking process, a highly-edited article on Wikipedia might be the most reliable source of information ever created.Traditional academic articles – the most common source of scientific evidence – are typically only peer-reviewed by up to three people and then never edited again.Less frequently edited articles on Wikipedia might be less reliable than popular ones. But it’s easy to find out how an article has been created and modified on Wikipedia. All modifications to an article are archived in its “history” page. Disputes between editors about the article’s content are documented in its “talk” page.To use Wikipedia effectively, school students need to be taught to find and a***yse these pages of an article, so they can quickly assess the article’s reliability.Is information on Wikipedia too shallow?
Many teachers also argue the information on Wikipedia is too basic, particularly for tertiary students. This argument supposes all fact-checking must involve deep engagement. But this is not best practice for conducting initial investigation into a subject online. Deep research needs to come later, once the validity of the source has been established.Still, some teachers are horrified by the idea students need to be taught to assess information quickly and superficially. If you look up the general capabilities in the Australian Curriculum, you will find “critical and creative thinking” encourages deep, broad reflection. Educators who conflate “critical” and “media” literacy may be inclined to believe a***ysis of online material must be slow and thorough.yet the reality is we live in an “attention economy” where everyoneandeverything on the internet is vying for our attention. Our time is precious, so engaging deeply with spurious online content, and potentially falling down misinformation rabbit holes, wastes a most valuable commodity – our attention.
Wikipedia can be a tool for better media literacyResearch suggests Australian children are not getting sufficient instruction in spotting fake news. Only one in five young Australians in 2020 reported having a lesson during the past year that helped them decide whether news stories could be trusted.Our students clearly need more media literacy education, and Wikipedia can be a good media literacy instrument. One way is to use it is with “lateral reading”. This means when faced with an unfamiliar online claim, students should leave the web page they’re on and open a new browser tab. They can then investigate what trusted sources say about the claim.Wikipedia is the perfect classroom resource for this purpose, even for primary-aged students. When first encountering unfamiliar information, students can be encouraged to go to the relevant Wikipedia page to check reliability. If the unknown information isn’t verifiable, they can discard it and move on.
More experienced fact-checkers can also beeline to the authoritative references at the bottom of each Wikipedia article.In the future, we hope first-year university students enter our classrooms already understanding the value of Wikipedia. This will mean a widespread cultural shift has taken place in Australian primary and secondary schools. In a time of climate change and pandemics, everyone needs to be able to separate fact from fiction. Wikipedia can be part of the remedy.