Wikipedia is cancer. If I search anything non-Marxist a Wikipedia box comes up on the right to say that it's far-right conspiracy theory and disinformation. Yet despite holding such sway they're always begging for money. Cunts.
That's why you use infogalactic.com instead. Any time someone posts a link on Twitter for a wikipedia article, post a link to the infogalactic alternative.
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.
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.
very intent of Elon and this post is to alert people of biasing, which they may not have been aware of so far.
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.
Just because wiki gives the sources doesn't mean make it any more reliable than MSM
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.
If the reporter itself is not credible, I have no interest in digging sources.
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.
Wikipedia was useful in high school when I had a paper to write. Paste in wiki article, change a few words in each sentence, flip a few paragraphs, boom, done in 15 minutes. Now it's just a collection of liberal "facts."
Sounds like it got better for writing papers. That's one thing I learned for college pretend to be a leftist. Randomly bring up unrelated news and be super progressive.
Wikipedia is no Truthpedia (hey, we do need that!), but I use it to collect clues and surf the blue links leading to connections and an overall picture.
Most interesting are companies, their founders, history name changes and mergers, their influence range.
Important persons, founders of companies/politicians, their history, family members, connections and activities.
The overall picture it gave me with certainty: It is a very old club and I am not in it!
And I learned a lot stuff regarding our cultural roots in old Greece and the Roman Empire which are basis of our "democratiic"/political, legal, pharmaceutic, chemist and medicine system - a lot of our words, definitions, meanings derive from those times and our slave bondage.
Can't anyone download wikipedia to like their own computer? Can't they then edit it as they will, regardless of MSM interference or "fact checkers"? And them publish it online as their own "wikipedia - for real"? Just wondering if anyone has a global platform that can do that kind of thing? Hey, wait a minute... Someone tweet Elon about this! (I don't have a twitter account)
It used to be an open sourced encyclopedia, but now it's not. You can tell an entry if full of bullshit if it has a lock on the top right of it. They are 100% left-wing.
I didn't want to donate $2 so I clicked on Maybe Later. They wanted my email address. I typed in F***[email protected]. They replied they would send a conformation to my email! Got my message across. YES
I check it occasionally to find source websites that don't show up in search engines. Its a fantastic tool for that, but ignore the wiki text. Also, its funny- if the topic Im researching is particularly spicy and needs digging, the article on Wikipedia is always locked from editing. To "prevent vandalism." But often very obscure and conspiracy related topics are locked. Its almost a good sign for my research. Means Im digging somewhere rich.
Very non-trivial bias. I generally trust them at the level of pure science or technology, but have found at least one suspect comment on the physics of rocket nozzles.
I updated this Wikipedia article just now. By adding 5 notable sources/citations. With my best efforts to remain within Wikipedia's agreements. Those are valid sources. List of my recent edits at https://archive.ph/vsGFg#selection-397.0-1549.1
The above edits means that this Wikipedia article is very unlikely to be permanently deleted
Wikipedia is cancer. If I search anything non-Marxist a Wikipedia box comes up on the right to say that it's far-right conspiracy theory and disinformation. Yet despite holding such sway they're always begging for money. Cunts.
True story
Wait till we find out who has been paying people to manage wiki info
Kanye knows.
Knows the nose.
Maybe Elon should submit an offer?
That's why you use infogalactic.com instead. Any time someone posts a link on Twitter for a wikipedia article, post a link to the infogalactic alternative.
Im old enough to remember when you couldn't cite wiki in highschool.
I am old enough that I used real books, articles and microfiche to research before handwriting my paper. I did eventually get a typewriter.
I do remember microfiche. I was just on the tail end of it though.
Im old enough to read and write cursive. I was blow away that my child's primary school is teaching it.
Me too. People underestimate how important cursive is to thinking. Its like music, with the idea of a chord in mind.
I’m old enough that we learned to write with chalk on slates. Before the PC was invented.
Writing with chalk on slates, sounds like you were around before the pencil was invented. 😂
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.
Wikipedia wasn't considered a source when I was in highschool/college.
Wikipedia was useful in high school when I had a paper to write. Paste in wiki article, change a few words in each sentence, flip a few paragraphs, boom, done in 15 minutes. Now it's just a collection of liberal "facts."
Replace "facts" with "talking points"
Sounds like it got better for writing papers. That's one thing I learned for college pretend to be a leftist. Randomly bring up unrelated news and be super progressive.
FBI
Wikipedia
I'm loving this! What next?
Try finding “Died Suddenly” the movie on Wikipedia. Then explain why it doesn’t have a page.
Wikipedia is no Truthpedia (hey, we do need that!), but I use it to collect clues and surf the blue links leading to connections and an overall picture.
Most interesting are companies, their founders, history name changes and mergers, their influence range.
Important persons, founders of companies/politicians, their history, family members, connections and activities.
The overall picture it gave me with certainty: It is a very old club and I am not in it!
And I learned a lot stuff regarding our cultural roots in old Greece and the Roman Empire which are basis of our "democratiic"/political, legal, pharmaceutic, chemist and medicine system - a lot of our words, definitions, meanings derive from those times and our slave bondage.
For example did you know these definitions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle)
Make sure to archive and screenshot people's "early life" section. You'll find most of what you need to know there.
Exactly what I always look for and anchestors, children, etc. - Follow the blue links ;-)
Wiki has been compromised for a while, even its founder has said it’s now a leftist propaganda platform.
Go look up Kari Lake they write that she has made “baseless” accusations of election fraud and frames it as if it’s fact that no fraud occurred.
Can't anyone download wikipedia to like their own computer? Can't they then edit it as they will, regardless of MSM interference or "fact checkers"? And them publish it online as their own "wikipedia - for real"? Just wondering if anyone has a global platform that can do that kind of thing? Hey, wait a minute... Someone tweet Elon about this! (I don't have a twitter account)
It used to be an open sourced encyclopedia, but now it's not. You can tell an entry if full of bullshit if it has a lock on the top right of it. They are 100% left-wing.
Leftopedia.
Yes, even the guy who founded Wikipedia said it can't be trusted, and that was years ago.
I didn't want to donate $2 so I clicked on Maybe Later. They wanted my email address. I typed in F***[email protected]. They replied they would send a conformation to my email! Got my message across. YES
I check it occasionally to find source websites that don't show up in search engines. Its a fantastic tool for that, but ignore the wiki text. Also, its funny- if the topic Im researching is particularly spicy and needs digging, the article on Wikipedia is always locked from editing. To "prevent vandalism." But often very obscure and conspiracy related topics are locked. Its almost a good sign for my research. Means Im digging somewhere rich.
Use infogalactic as a replacement for wiki
Wikipedia has been a shit source for at least 10 years now🤣
Very non-trivial bias. I generally trust them at the level of pure science or technology, but have found at least one suspect comment on the physics of rocket nozzles.
I updated this Wikipedia article just now. By adding 5 notable sources/citations. With my best efforts to remain within Wikipedia's agreements. Those are valid sources. List of my recent edits at https://archive.ph/vsGFg#selection-397.0-1549.1
The above edits means that this Wikipedia article is very unlikely to be permanently deleted
Final and published article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
For those interested to contribute to Wikipedia, you might find this documentation of interest at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction
The more you contribute to Wikipedia. The more you built trust with its community. The more permissions you get.