It's fine for some things, but those are mostly limited to stuff like some actor's filmography or a book author's bibliography - although in the latter case they don't seem to mention mostly only what that author has gotten published through trad publishing, not as an indie, so unreliable there too.
And if you want to know what the plot of some film is, like something you saw long enough a time ago that you no longer remember all that much and want to check if you remember something right, wikipedia seems to be one of the few places where they usually give a fairly detailed explanation for that, at least if the movie is better known. :D
Well, and sometimes it can be useful as a starting point when you are researching something you know pretty much nothing about. It may not be reliable, but you can find at least some things you can use when looking for other sources, words and sentences to use on search engine searches.
This is how the Left wins. Every interested Anon should have a Wikipedia account and be editing articles to provide much needed balance. Google search any term of meaning, and a Wikipedia entry is usually there for it, on the front page. Wikipedia is the front line in the information war.
YouTube started adding links to Wikipedia for certain topics in March 2018, when they announced "information cues" or "information panels" for videos about conspiracy theories, with the first articles appearing in July 2018.
Here's a breakdown of the timeline:
March 2018:
YouTube announced the initiative to link to Wikipedia in videos that often feature misinformation and conspiracy theories.
July 2018:
The first set of Wikipedia links under videos on YouTube began to appear.
August 2018:
The program was expanded to include other subjects prone to misinformation.
Right before the 23&Me cunts calculated the ideal vector for the bioweapon using the data schmucks sent them...
Elon is creating Grokepedia... to "compete against" wikipedia
This is comical... for a couple reasons.
First, there's NO MONEY in a free online encyclopedia... they're ALWAYS begging for money.
Secondly, this is the "funny" part - If you've ever watched MyLunchBreak, he did a pretty good job essentially pointing out how the historical record Wikipedia puts out is completely AI generated. The names, places, fires, records - show a pattern and repetitive bs that doesn't withstand investigation when you really dig into it.
CIA is the enemy of America at this point. They control MSM. They control actors, musicians, etc. through blackmail. Tulsi needs to step the fuck up and end this shit.
I found out today by sending this interview to my supposedly redpilled and awake mum that she has been donating £1.50 every month to these bastards!! What a numpty!!
She had no idea Wokipedia was biased lmao. Man, can't leave the boomers on their own for five minutes! xD
I sent a tell to DJT about how we could work with historians and researchers around the globe to create a new encyclopedia. Probably unrelated, but I'm glad we are getting some attention on it.
Honestly, how would this dude know? He helped found wikipedia in 2001, then bounced 8 months later and never worked with them again and didn't talk to them due to a huge falling out over how much he was paid.
Every Anon should have a Wikipedia account and be editing articles to provide much-needed balance. It's fun, educational, and it can help you career, if you do it smartly. Then, of course, slide into those articles that -- ahem -- need fixing.
Check out wikipedia's "Deprecated sources"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources
Gateway Pundit
Breitbart
OANN
Newsmax
See a pattern?
Yea and they list the ADL as generally reliable. What an absolute ironic farce
They’d be attacked by the ADL if they said otherwise…that’s it’s purpose…attack dog and intimidate
A very astute observation, I never thought of it like that. Attack dog... It's really accurate!
Thanks for the link & the laugh!!! The Newsmax reason, (the only one I looked at), was hilarious.
funny coming from wikipedia
Okay, but:
Etc. What is the purported pattern from your cherry-picked examples?
Full interview by Tucker here: https://rumble.com/v6zmski-wikipedia-co-creator-reveals-all-cia-infiltration-banning-conservatives-and.html?e9s=src_v1_cmd%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a
I dont check wiki for anything. If wiki is given as a search result i ignore it. It may as well be jokes written on toolet paper.
Same. I wouldn't let students cite Wikipedia.
Any searches i do contain (-Wikipedia & -reddit)
It's fine for some things, but those are mostly limited to stuff like some actor's filmography or a book author's bibliography - although in the latter case they don't seem to mention mostly only what that author has gotten published through trad publishing, not as an indie, so unreliable there too.
And if you want to know what the plot of some film is, like something you saw long enough a time ago that you no longer remember all that much and want to check if you remember something right, wikipedia seems to be one of the few places where they usually give a fairly detailed explanation for that, at least if the movie is better known. :D
Well, and sometimes it can be useful as a starting point when you are researching something you know pretty much nothing about. It may not be reliable, but you can find at least some things you can use when looking for other sources, words and sentences to use on search engine searches.
This is how the Left wins. Every interested Anon should have a Wikipedia account and be editing articles to provide much needed balance. Google search any term of meaning, and a Wikipedia entry is usually there for it, on the front page. Wikipedia is the front line in the information war.
The CIA or Mossad?
same
Larry apparently said, “I am not one of the Frozen Chosen”, while looking to see if he was related to Margaret Sanger.
Awful strange statement since she was Irish. Margaret’s husband, however… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sanger
Did not know that.
That is weird. But they are a weird tribe.
According to the Google AI twat:
YouTube started adding links to Wikipedia for certain topics in March 2018, when they announced "information cues" or "information panels" for videos about conspiracy theories, with the first articles appearing in July 2018.
Here's a breakdown of the timeline:
March 2018:
YouTube announced the initiative to link to Wikipedia in videos that often feature misinformation and conspiracy theories.
July 2018:
The first set of Wikipedia links under videos on YouTube began to appear.
August 2018:
The program was expanded to include other subjects prone to misinformation.
Right before the 23&Me cunts calculated the ideal vector for the bioweapon using the data schmucks sent them...
u/#clownworld
Wikipedia has been skewed to far-left ideology for at least the last 25 years. Glad someone is finally speaking up.
I read Elon is creating Grokepedia to compete against wikipedia. Hopefully it will be an honest resource.
Grok lies too
"Coming soon: "Grok Lies Matter". 😊
This is comical... for a couple reasons.
First, there's NO MONEY in a free online encyclopedia... they're ALWAYS begging for money.
Secondly, this is the "funny" part - If you've ever watched MyLunchBreak, he did a pretty good job essentially pointing out how the historical record Wikipedia puts out is completely AI generated. The names, places, fires, records - show a pattern and repetitive bs that doesn't withstand investigation when you really dig into it.
CIA is the enemy of America at this point. They control MSM. They control actors, musicians, etc. through blackmail. Tulsi needs to step the fuck up and end this shit.
u/#youdontsay
I found out today by sending this interview to my supposedly redpilled and awake mum that she has been donating £1.50 every month to these bastards!! What a numpty!!
She had no idea Wokipedia was biased lmao. Man, can't leave the boomers on their own for five minutes! xD
I sent a tell to DJT about how we could work with historians and researchers around the globe to create a new encyclopedia. Probably unrelated, but I'm glad we are getting some attention on it.
Have you ever clicked “sources” on wiki to see that they’re either heavily cherry-picked misrepresentations of “truths”? Even the sources are a lie
Respectfully, Langley needs to be nuked from orbit.
"It's the only way to be sure"
I love this guy. Larry Sanger is a based guy, and super smart.
Honestly, how would this dude know? He helped found wikipedia in 2001, then bounced 8 months later and never worked with them again and didn't talk to them due to a huge falling out over how much he was paid.
Every Anon should have a Wikipedia account and be editing articles to provide much-needed balance. It's fun, educational, and it can help you career, if you do it smartly. Then, of course, slide into those articles that -- ahem -- need fixing.