Wikipedia has never, ever been a reliable source for information. I remember when it came out and they told us we get an automatic F in school if we cited it as a source.
One of the greatest lies ever told to students about Wikipedia is that it can be used as a source for sources... rather than citing Wikipedia, the student could use Wikipedia to find sources that would be acceptable. Problem there is, when the source selection for a Wikipedia article is itself biased, then Wikipedia and its sources really are a distinction without a difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU
People should watch this video where he explains his reasoning. It makes perfect sense why he feels that way. As someone who has only occasionally glanced at the contentious wiki articles, I certainly feel that it has been hijacked, no different from reddit or youtube. Also, wiki still has its neutrality policy in place, only that the editors there now believe that their narrative IS neutral and non controversial, and that including other viewpoints in a non dismissive way is "biased". A perfect example of "it's different when I do it".
90%+ of topics are fine for researching on wikipedia - animals, chemistry, hockey, foods, computers, coffee, yada yada yada, the list is endless
[It's amusing and amazing how many people will tout scientific journals as credible data (pre-Wuhan flu), when they almost never get updated or corrected and are notoriously full of errors; meanwhile wikipedia is updated constantly and rigorously in real time]
If a topic has ANY political or social component to it, even remotely or tangentially, then no. Just like the Straight Dope website, it's going to be insane, unabashed left-wing propaganda every time. At least it's predictable LOL
I know we're supposed to be enthusiastic to see people wake up... but when I see stuff like this I just find it demoralizing that it's taking so damn long for even the most basic things to be acknowledged.
If we're just getting around to accepting the idea that info on wikipedia is being manipulated how much longer before people will accept what Q was exposing?
Wikipedia has never, ever been a reliable source for information. I remember when it came out and they told us we get an automatic F in school if we cited it as a source.
One of the greatest lies ever told to students about Wikipedia is that it can be used as a source for sources... rather than citing Wikipedia, the student could use Wikipedia to find sources that would be acceptable. Problem there is, when the source selection for a Wikipedia article is itself biased, then Wikipedia and its sources really are a distinction without a difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU People should watch this video where he explains his reasoning. It makes perfect sense why he feels that way. As someone who has only occasionally glanced at the contentious wiki articles, I certainly feel that it has been hijacked, no different from reddit or youtube. Also, wiki still has its neutrality policy in place, only that the editors there now believe that their narrative IS neutral and non controversial, and that including other viewpoints in a non dismissive way is "biased". A perfect example of "it's different when I do it".
I'm ashamed to say I've donated to Wikipedia. There was a time I thought it was useful. hangs head in shame
Hmmmmm. What about Snopes? Kek
Yeah, Wikipedia results are the ones I skip--it had been this way for me for many moons...blatant lies at times-so obvious even libtards notice
I think I speak for most when I say, DUHHHHH
Discernment
90%+ of topics are fine for researching on wikipedia - animals, chemistry, hockey, foods, computers, coffee, yada yada yada, the list is endless
[It's amusing and amazing how many people will tout scientific journals as credible data (pre-Wuhan flu), when they almost never get updated or corrected and are notoriously full of errors; meanwhile wikipedia is updated constantly and rigorously in real time]
If a topic has ANY political or social component to it, even remotely or tangentially, then no. Just like the Straight Dope website, it's going to be insane, unabashed left-wing propaganda every time. At least it's predictable LOL
Here you can find some lovely quotes by Karl Marx. Have fun, read, share, play around...
https://unlearningcommunism.com/most-controversial-quotations-by-karl-marx
Wait there's people who don't know this?
A lot of wikipedia pages can be edited. Just sayin' :)
I’ve been telling ppl this for YEARS. This is not new news.
Any relation to Margret Sanger? Lol, I hope not.
LOL!!! Thank you for the laugh!
I know we're supposed to be enthusiastic to see people wake up... but when I see stuff like this I just find it demoralizing that it's taking so damn long for even the most basic things to be acknowledged.
If we're just getting around to accepting the idea that info on wikipedia is being manipulated how much longer before people will accept what Q was exposing?