Elon Musk goes after Wikipedia now exposing their left-wing bias. Those that still use Wiki as information source for "facts" should wake up now!
(media.greatawakening.win)
🤡 CLOWN SCENE 🤡
Suggesting that wikipedia is a "bad resource" because it has a left bias is an ad hominem which misses what an investigation is. An investigation into the veracity of a thing doesn't care about the source of statements of facts, nor the biases of that source, it cares about the arguments. It cares about citations which lead to further digging to find original sources and/or corroborating evidence.
Wikipedia is a great resource for investigation because it is well sourced. Assuming that other sources are "more truthful" because they confirm your own biases is the opposite of investigating the truth of a thing. All that is, is seeking out justification for your beliefs. The Truth is whatever it is. If you only go around looking for "right-leaning" sources you don't care about the truth, you only care about remaining within your echo chamber.
The Left and the Right are both controlled opposition. The Truth is whatever it is. Look at the arguments. Investigate for yourself. Look at the biases, whichever direction they lean and appreciate what is statement of fact, and what is biased opinion. While it is important to distinguish those things during reading, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Statements of fact can be stated in a biased way either through rhetoric or by leaving out important context. Both of those are very common and lead the reader to believe the author rather than appreciate the nuggets of fact contained within the rhetoric. This happens on all sides of the political spectrum and is fundamental to what rhetoric is; attempting to change the readers beliefs to align with some agenda.
There is so much to be said on this, but in short, suggesting that we should not use wikipedia for investigation is ludicrous. It is incredibly well sourced and is an excellent resource; far better than 99% of the resources other people use. What you should not do is trust wikipedia (or any of the sources referenced within it). But of course, you shouldn't trust anything or anyone. Trust is the opposite of critical thinking and can only hamper any honest investigation into the truth of a thing.
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.
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.
Facts are not "truth", they are reports of an event. A report is not truth, it is a biased observation. Always.
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).
ALL sources have the "influenced" problem, at least potentially. And Everything is biased.
I agree that Elon pointing out bias on Wikipedia is a good thing. I agree that teaching people that wikipedia is not to be trusted is a good thing. Not only was that not my protest, I agreed with it wholeheartedly from the get go. My protest was with regard to your title which stated explicitly that people should not use wikipedia as an information source for facts. I disagree completely. Wikipedia is one of the single best sources on the internet for facts. It just isn't a good place for all the facts.
I assert that no source is reliable. Thinking that any source is reliable will never be part of the path to the truth and will only get you into trouble if your goal is understanding it.
I suggest this is a huge problem if your goal is understanding the truth of a thing. The vast majority of the time people tell the truth (by "truth" I mean they give the facts in earnest). However, people almost never tell the whole truth. Bias is not generally in lies, but in the important parts left out. Pretty much everyone leaves out important parts. Only if you allow yourself to see others "truths" (the facts they present) can you ever hope to get closer to the actual (whole) truth of a thing.