38
Comments (17)
sorted by:
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
4
Termin8or 4 points ago +4 / -0

Why are they soooo….worried?

4
4Mitchell4 4 points ago +4 / -0

That is a terrible article - It asks that you use Wikipedia to check on the background of the source individual and we all know who writes Wuki - It is ridiculously biased and often outright false, What an idiot to recommend that!

7
TNBanjoMan 7 points ago +7 / -0

I used to be a technical editor at a research university, assisting faculty in writing grant proposals. Sometimes a faculty would cite Wikipedia as a source and I wouldn't allow it. I told them of Wiki's bias, but also that it was open source and anyone could edit entries. I told the faculty that Wikipedia is like a public toilet you never know who touched it last.

3
4Mitchell4 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well done - I was a high school teacher. I told my kids they were not allowed to use anything from it.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

All resources are suspect. The idea that some sources should be more trusted than others (i.e. that we should be less critical of the information contained therein) is the fraud that keeps us in the Matrix. All you can say about a source with any reasonable certainty is that a specific source said a specific thing. Even there, its not always clear who exactly is the one speaking, nor what exactly they are saying (which is where discernment and debate come in).

Wikipedia is of course biased, yet it is 9 times out of 10 a better source than any news site, fact checker, or really any mainstream (popular) website. Wikipedia always sites it sources. That means if you want to dig, wikipedia will give you an entry. They only use secondary sources, which makes it twice as hard to get anywhere, but its better than most places that use circular sources, if they use any at all.

I use Wikipedia as a possible source for anything that I am not contesting, or as a potential entry to dig deeper. The problem with Wikipedia is not that it is written by anyone, the problem with Wikipedia is the same problem as with all other sources; that people trust what they are reading as Truth.

There are zero sources that speak the Truth. There are only sources, that say what they say. That is the real evidence. That is how we use evidence in a court of law, that is how we use evidence in science, why would we use evidence in a different manner in any other investigation to get closer to the the Truth?

The answer of course, is that we were trained to do it differently by The Matrix.

2
GridSquaresBoxOf [S] 2 points ago +3 / -1

lol , shit article. They are scared, they don't want anyone getting information outside of google, wikipedia, their newspapers, and fact checkers.

4
DoMagnum 4 points ago +4 / -0

Brer Rabbit: "Please Don't Throw Me in The Briar Patch!"

3
MissMagaMillenial 3 points ago +3 / -0

For my job, I have to do research on our clients to make sure they are on the up and up. We aren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Michonne21 2 points ago +2 / -0

i.e., stay ignorant

2
Dirtbuggy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Authority telling people that it's intelligent to stay in their echo chamber, terrifying..

2
Charmark20 2 points ago +2 / -0

The MSM has ignored history and the 'boy who cried wolf' story with so many lies, They will never be trusted again on any subject.

1
Logic20xx 1 point ago +2 / -1

I did some lateral reading and it turns out TNYT is fake Jew news.