The Wikipedia entry defining “Recession” has been updated 22 times in past 24 hours.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (29)
sorted by:
There are plenty of people that don’t research though.
And they're not manifesting anything, either.
People (idiots) consider them valid. I can't tell you how many teachers had to tell us "wikipedia isn't a valid source to cite"
When your GDP slides 3 percent in 6 months, you're certainly not growing.
I'm pretty sure they call that Weimar Germany in 1920. And Venezuela about 3 months after Maduro took power. HMMMMMMM
Winston Smith is hard at work...
or a new razor for shaving.
Is it locked? You know they are covering something up when they lock the Wikipedia.
Wiki is useful for stuff like sports stats, info about musicians and bands, general info about things that aren't too important, stuff like that.
Literally nothing about politics and related subjects like economics or anything else that can take a left-wing or globalist slant, because it will.
Wiki. Is good for studying history.
Especially ancient history.
Otherwise. It’s garbage liberal crap
You trust their Ancient History recap? I don't.
"Life, if you looked about you, bore no resemblance not only to the lies that streamed out of the telescreens, but even to the ideals that the Party was trying to achieve." - Nineteen Eighty-Four
Recession redefined: The general state of the economy when Republicans control the white house. If you aren't getting your information from us then it is all lies.
Interested anons need to join the information war on the Wikipedia front.
wiki is just another controlled info site... finding the truth takes effort
In other words, an unverified opinion, probably of a commie.
Problem is people think Wikipedia the the De facto answer to all things just like they say "Google it" for doing internet searches.
Every socialist on my husband’s side of the family thinks it is a definitive source. I’ve even tutored on Facebook how to see all of the edits and look at the accepted sources vs those that were edited out. Nope.
Back in early 2000s, wikipedia was considered not a legitimate source for school and uni papers. Is it considered one now? I'd bet so
Yeah, it's acceptable as a source. It can't be your only source if you write a paper - they make you cite an arbitrary minimum # of sources. The funny thing is, anything "unreliable" (read: independent outlets, research) cannot be used. It has to be a reputable (propaganda) Source.
I used to just plug in random sources and write whatever I wanted. Just get it close to making sense and it usually worked, lol. I know that teachers didn't care about what you wrote half the time, just that you didn't plagiarize
I remember my elementary school teachers not allowing us to use wikipedia, because “anyone can edit it” its not actual sources. But i also remember my high school teachers saying that if its not on wikipedia, its not true…
How quickly opinions change about "legitimate sources" huh? Lol.
Good thing someone is staying on top of the whole definition thing. We would have been in much worse shape under the old definition(s)!
Look at this one edit: "the two quarter rule gained popularity because of its simplicity with the public, media.... said [Goss] a Creighton University economist. But officially, the recession is only defined by.... National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER]"
My God what a load of shit. I went to university for Economics and this is utter tripe. We defined recession as per the NBER as TWO STRAIGHT Qs of ECONOMIC CONTRACTION in our Maceoeconomics classes, whatever other lipstick they want to put on this pig. They will redefine anything to save face now....
What is a woman? What is a recession??
Bunch of tossers. (edit: Note that the magnitude of contraction did NOT matter whatsoever... any economic contraction is enough to verify)
This way they can pick whichever one they want and show it is in Wiki.