There is a well-known notion that "if its on wiki, then it must be true"

This is irrelevant to my point. Teaching people to trust nothing is the goal, whether it be wikipedia or the God almighty himself (not really, but hopefully you'll allow the exaggeration). It is Trust that is the problem. Read the link I provided in the previous post.

I wouldn't call it a "great" resource simply because of its progressive bias.

In the search for the truth it is impossible to find anything without bias. Everything is biased, even those things that pretend not to be. Even a thing such as data itself is biased, because it is dependent on the machine that took the measurements (choices went in to making the machine), the person who took the data (even if it is a computer for the same reason as previous), etc. EVERYTHING is biased. You not liking one particular bias has nothing to do with the process of getting closer and closer to the truth in investigation.

Wikipedia is a good resource because it cites its sources extremely well. This allows a researcher to track down why people say what they say. It is one of the best resources out there for this reason. Most places don't let you know why they are saying what they say. Everyone spins it, but without direct access to the source of their statements it takes a lot more digging to figure out why.

This is very important because if you are investigating something, you need facts

Facts are not "truth", they are reports of an event. A report is not truth, it is a biased observation. Always.

Highlighting wiki as biased and not trustworthy is no more than pointing at MSM

The huge difference, which I am trying to explain to you, is that MSM et al doesn't generally give direct access to their full sources like wikipedia does. What any particular place says is less relevant than having immediate access to the inspiration (in all its original context) that made them say it. To appreciate what I am saying, you must start from the position of trust nothing (which I am trying to explain to you).

Ultimately it all boils down to if a platform can be influenced politically, financially and moderated towards certain bias.

ALL sources have the "influenced" problem, at least potentially. And Everything is biased.

There is a well-known notion that "if its on wiki, then it must be true"

This is irrelevant. Teaching people to trust nothing is the goal, whether it be wikipedia or the God almighty himself (not really, but hopefully you'll allow the exaggeration). It is Trust that is the problem. Read the link I provided in the previous post.

I wouldn't call it a "great" resource simply because of its progressive bias.

In the search for the truth it is impossible to find anything without bias. Everything is biased, even those things that pretend not to be. Even a thing such as data itself is biased, because it is dependent on the machine that took the measurements (choices went in to making the machine), the person who took the data (even if it is a computer for the same reason as previous), etc. EVERYTHING is biased. You not liking one particular bias has nothing to do with the process of getting closer and closer to the truth in investigation.

Wikipedia is a good resource because it cites its sources extremely well. This allows a researcher to track down why people say what they say. It is one of the best resources out there for this reason. Most places don't let you know why they are saying what they say. Everyone spins it, but without direct access to the source of their statements it takes a lot more digging to figure out why.

This is very important because if you are investigating something, you need facts

Facts are not "truth", they are reports of an event. A report is not truth, it is a biased observation. Always.

Highlighting wiki as biased and not trustworthy is no more than pointing at MSM

The huge difference, which I am trying to explain to you, is that MSM et al doesn't generally give direct access to their full sources like wikipedia does. What any particular place says is less relevant than having immediate access to the inspiration (in all its original context) that made them say it. To appreciate what I am saying, you must start from the position of trust nothing (which I am trying to explain to you).

Ultimately it all boils down to if a platform can be influenced politically, financially and moderated towards certain bias.

ALL sources have the "influenced" problem, at least potentially. And Everything is biased.

There is a well-known notion that "if its on wiki, then it must be true"

This is irrelevant. Teaching people to trust nothing is the goal, whether it be wikipedia or the God almighty himself (not really, but hopefully you'll allow the exaggeration). It is Trust that is the problem. Read the link I provided in the previous post.

I wouldn't call it a "great" resource simply because of its progressive bias.

In the search for the truth it is impossible to find anything without bias. Everything is biased, even those things that pretend not to be. Even a thing such as data itself is biased, because it is dependent on the machine that took the measurements (choices went in to making the machine), the person who took the data (even if it is a computer for the same reason as previous), etc. EVERYTHING is biased. You not liking one particular bias has nothing to do with the process of getting closer and closer to the truth in investigation.

Wikipedia is a good resource because it cites its sources extremely well. This allows a researcher to track down why people say what they say. It is one of the best resources out there for this reason. Most places don't let you know why they are saying what they say. Everyone spins it, but without direct access to the source of their statements it takes a lot more digging to figure out why.

This is very important because if you are investigating something, you need facts

Facts are not "truth", they are reports of an event. A report is not truth, it is a biased observation. Always.

Highlighting wiki as biased and not trustworthy is no more than pointing at MSM

The huge difference, which I am trying to explain to you, is that MSM et al doesn't generally give direct access to their full sources like wikipedia does. What any particular place says is less relevant than having immediate access to the inspiration that made them say it. To appreciate what I am saying, you must start from the position of trust nothing (which I am trying to explain to you).

Ultimately it all boils down to if a platform can be influenced politically, financially and moderated towards certain bias.

ALL sources have the "influenced" problem, at least potentially. And Everything is biased.

There is a well-known notion that "if its on wiki, then it must be true"

This is irrelevant. Teaching people to trust nothing is the goal, whether it be wikipedia or the God almighty himself (not really, but hopefully you'll allow the exaggeration). It is Trust that is the problem. Read the link I provided in the previous post.

I wouldn't call it a "great" resource simply because of its progressive bias.

In the search for the truth it is impossible to find anything without bias. Everything is biased, even those things that pretend not to be. Even a thing such as data itself is biased, because it is dependent on the machine that took the measurements (choices went in to making the machine), the person who took the data (even if it is a computer for the same reason as previous), etc. EVERYTHING is biased. You not liking one particular bias has nothing to do with the process of getting closer and closer to the truth in investigation.

Wikipedia is a good resource because it cites its sources extremely well. This allows a researcher to track down why people say what they say. It is one of the best resources out there for this reason. Most places don't let you know why they are saying what they say. Everyone spins it, but without direct access to the source of their statements it takes a lot more digging to figure out why.

This is very important because if you are investigating something, you need facts

Facts are not "truth", they are reports of an event. A report is not truth, it is a biased observation. Always.

Highlighting wiki as biased and not trustworthy is no more than pointing at MSM

The huge difference, which I am trying to explain to you, is that MSM doesn't give direct access to their sources like wikipedia does. What any particular place says is less relevant than having immediate access to the inspiration that made them say it. To appreciate what I am saying, you must start from the position of trust nothing (which I am trying to explain to you).

Ultimately it all boils down to if a platform can be influenced politically, financially and moderated towards certain bias.

ALL sources have the "influenced" problem, at least potentially. And Everything is biased.

There is a well-known notion that "if its on wiki, then it must be true"

This is irrelevant. Teaching people to trust nothing is the goal, whether it be wikipedia or the God almighty himself (not really, but hopefully you'll allow the exaggeration). It is Trust that is the problem. Read the link I provided in the previous post.

I wouldn't call it a "great" resource simply because of its progressive bias.

In the search for the truth, it is impossible to find anything without bias. Everything is biased, even those things that pretend not to be. Even a thing such as data itself is biased, because it is dependent on the machine that took the measurements (choices went in to making the machine), the person who took the data (even if it is a computer for the same reason as previous), etc. EVERYTHING is biased. You not liking one particular bias has nothing to do with the process of getting closer and closer to the truth in investigation.

Wikipedia is a good resource because it cites its sources extremely well. This allows a researcher to track down why people say what they say. It is one of the best resources out there for this reason. Most places don't let you know why they are saying what they say. Everyone spins it, but without direct access to the source of their statements it takes a lot more digging to figure out why.

This is very important because if you are investigating something, you need facts

Facts are not "truth", they are reports of an event. A report is not truth, it is a biased observation. Always.

Highlighting wiki as biased and not trustworthy is no more than pointing at MSM

The huge difference, which I am trying to explain to you, is that MSM doesn't give direct access to their sources like wikipedia does. What any particular place says is less relevant than having immediate access to the inspiration that made them say it. To appreciate what I am saying, you must start from the position of trust nothing (which I am trying to explain to you).

Ultimately it all boils down to if a platform can be influenced politically, financially and moderated towards certain bias.

ALL sources have the "influenced" problem, at least potentially. And Everything is biased.

There is a well-known notion that "if its on wiki, then it must be true"

This is irrelevant. Teaching people to trust nothing is the goal, whether it be wikipedia or the God almighty himself (not really, but hopefully you'll allow the exaggeration). It is Trust that is the problem Read the link I provided in the previous post.

I wouldn't call it a "great" resource simply because of its progressive bias.

In the search for the truth, it is impossible to find anything without bias. Everything is biased, even those things that pretend not to be. Even a thing such as data itself is biased, because it is dependent on the machine that took the measurements (choices went in to making the machine), the person who took the data (even if it is a computer for the same reason as previous), etc. EVERYTHING is biased. You not liking one particular bias has nothing to do with the process of getting closer and closer to the truth in investigation.

Wikipedia is a good resource because it cites its sources extremely well. This allows a researcher to track down why people say what they say. It is one of the best resources out there for this reason. Most places don't let you know why they are saying what they say. Everyone spins it, but without direct access to the source of their statements it takes a lot more digging to figure out why.

This is very important because if you are investigating something, you need facts

Facts are not "truth", they are reports of an event. A report is not truth, it is a biased observation. Always.

Highlighting wiki as biased and not trustworthy is no more than pointing at MSM

The huge difference, which I am trying to explain to you, is that MSM doesn't give direct access to their sources like wikipedia does. What any particular place says is less relevant than having immediate access to the inspiration that made them say it. To appreciate what I am saying, you must start from the position of trust nothing (which I am trying to explain to you).

Ultimately it all boils down to if a platform can be influenced politically, financially and moderated towards certain bias.

ALL sources have the "influenced" problem, at least potentially. And Everything is biased.

There is a well-known notion that "if its on wiki, then it must be true"

This is irrelevant. Teaching people to trust nothing is the goal, whether it be wikipedia or the God almighty himself (not really, but hopefully you'll allow the exaggeration). It is Trust that is the problem Read the link I provided in the previous post.

I wouldn't call it a "great" resource simply because of its progressive bias.

In the search for the truth, it is impossible to find anything without bias. Everything is biased, even those things that pretend not to be. Even a thing such as data itself is biased, because it is dependent on the machine that took the measurements (choices went in to making the machine), the person who took the data (even if it is a computer for the same reason as previous), etc. EVERYTHING is biased. You not liking one particular bias has nothing to do with the process of getting closer and closer to the truth in investigation.

Wikipedia is a good resource because it cites its sources extremely well. This allows a researcher to track down why people say what they say. It is one of the best resources out there for this reason. Most places don't let you know why they are saying what they say. Everyone spins it, but without direct access to the source of their statements it takes a lot more digging to figure out why.

This is very important because if you are investigating something, you need facts

Facts are not "truth", they are reports of an event. A report is not truth, it is a biased observation. Always.

Highlighting wiki as biased and not trustworthy is no more than pointing at MSM

The huge difference, which I am trying to explain to you, is that MSM doesn't give direct access to their sources like wikipedia does. What any particular place says is less relevant than having immediate access to the inspiration that made them say it.

Ultimately it all boils down to if a platform can be influenced politically, financially and moderated towards certain bias.

ALL sources have the "influenced" problem, at least potentially. And Everything is biased.