Wikipedia and its agenda and inaccuracies

[Hobbit XIII]

Here is a place to post the links of inaccurate Wikipedia pages with the area of the inaccuracy on the Wiki page.

There has been much posting about how unreliable Wikipedia has become and I would like to see it first hand as most the stuff I look up is technical specs at a glance.

If you have found a page which people here have said they have then please share.

So far

Three pages in so far and not one link to a wikipedia page that is incorrect / inaccurate.

An interesting point was put that some different language pages could be different to the English ones on bias which is a good point.
Still no links provided, I'll have a look at the historical pages when I have time (but don't hold your breath I will have to brush up my language skills) to see any differences.

The important part of this thread is the actual links not what so and so said or 'maybe it is this' without providing links to wikipedia pages that are in question.

And this just in!

Quantum Processing Units are not listed.
Probably because nobody knows how to measure it maybe they are secrets maybe nobody has gotten around to putting them up yet.

What I do know is...I have no idea. Computers just meant to be binary things we can pull a switch on in it's millions at will :'(

[Mauserich]

I think Wikipedia is reasonably useful, especially when it comes to initial information and further references. There is actually excellent Wikipedia information and less excellent information. BUT it is not of the same quality in all languages, sometimes a page in one language is more productive and another less. It depends on the topic. AND depending on the language, the political views and the historical presentation differ. It is therefore advisable to approach a topic in other languages as well.

[Hobbit XIII]

Mauserich a écrit :

I think Wikipedia is reasonably useful, especially when it comes to initial information and further references. There is actually excellent Wikipedia information. BUT it is not of the same quality in all languages, sometimes a page in one language is more productive and another less. It depends on the topic. AND depending on the language, the political views and the historical presentation differ. It is therefore advisable to approach a topic in other languages as well.

I'll hazard a guess the referenced books are from different sources than the English ones which makes sense.
Had not thought of the differences between languages. that will be interesting to have a look at one afternoon.

[Lupa]

I look at bugs and other animals and click the source links for further info. Wikipedia is a great place to look up beetles. I find it reliable in that aspect.

[xDDD]

Wikipedia is super inaccurate for anyone on the other side of the culture spectrum for them. Tons and TONS of unfounded accusations and labels on certain people.
And they don't scrutinize sources at all when it comes to the lies fitting their agenda, but when it is to the contrary it'll just be dismissed as an "unreliable source" and "misinformation. "

They make me sick and every time I see them begging for money I kind of hope that they don't get it and go out of business.

[Azza ☠]

:D a écrit :

Wikipedia is super inaccurate for anyone on the other side of the culture spectrum for them. Tons and TONS of unfounded accusations and labels on certain people.
And they don't scrutinize sources at all when it comes to the lies fitting their agenda, but when it is to the contrary it'll just be dismissed as an "unreliable source" and "misinformation. "

They make me sick and every time I see them begging for money I kind of hope that they don't get it and go out of business.

Umm, they list all the reference sources at the bottom of each page.

When you see those [bracketed numbers], that's a quick link to the reference source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

For Donald Trump's wiki, for example, there's over 844 reference sources. Plus works cited and external links are also provided.

You can then view the "Revision history" and see who's added/removed what, where and why. It is completely transparent.

Now you scroll down and read that entire page, you see some positive information, but then there's also "Conflicts of interest", "falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud", "attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials" and "he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked"...

Which all is perfectly valid too, but some people want that censored out, while also ironically cry for "Freedom of Speech".

Note it even says "he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol" and then "which many of them then attacked"... it's not even suggesting he caused the attack, but rather the valid facts without any assumptions or white washing.

[apathy]

I like how Atlantis is pseudo history on the site.

You have to be dumber than f**king bricks and never gone on holiday to ancient sites across the world to not know there was an ancient global civilization that got wiped out.

This isn't even the Silurian hypothesis, you can go there and see how MASSIVE these precision cut blocks were. Blocks we cannot move today with our modern machinery.

It would be wise if they said nothing at all, and kept their snide, witless, insufferably ignorant remarks to themselves.

[volusat]

i only get my info from youtubers

[Azza ☠]

apathy a écrit :

I like how Atlantis is pseudo history on the site.

You have to be dumber than f**king bricks and never gone on holiday to ancient sites across the world to not know there was an ancient global civilization that got wiped out.

This isn't even the Silurian hypothesis, you can go there and see how MASSIVE these precision cut blocks were. Blocks we cannot move today with our modern machinery.

It would be wise if they said nothing at all, and kept their snide, witless, insufferably ignorant remarks to themselves.

Plato made up the story of Atlantis as a tale to celebrate the greatness of Athens, during a festival for the city and its patron goddess, Athena. It was never, ever intended to be taken as a true story.

Few, if any, scientists think Atlantis actually existed. The only real question is if he based it on an actual place or not, or happened later after he had already wrote about it which others can just label as such. It's quite possible for land mass to move and sink under the water.

For example: Port Royal in Jamaica was home to real-life pirates of the Caribbean. In 1692, a massive earthquake caused a tsunami to kill 2000 living on it and submerged it completely under water. The city's sinking was deemed an act of God.

There's various others too.

I believe Thonis-Heracleion and/or Alexandria could easily be mistaken as Atlantis.

[apathy]

Azza ☠ a écrit :

Plato made up the story of Atlantis as a tale to celebrate the greatness of Athens, during a festival for the city and its patron goddess, Athena. It was never, ever intended to be taken as a true story.

Few, if any, scientists think Atlantis actually existed. The only real question is if he based it on an actual place or not, or happened later after he had already wrote about it which others can just label as such. It's quite possible for land mass to move and sink under the water.

We'll just ignore the Richat Structure and evidence of a mega tsunami across Africa. Sure why not.

Man made climate change gets an uncritical free pass though.

Oh, but that's okay, that's only going back some 12,800 years. Us humans have since had such a firm grasp on our own history. I mean we can't even decide if Roman Emperor Sponsian, is f**king real or not.

[Dom]

If conspiracy theorists and extremists complain that it is disinformation and filled with lies, then it is a pretty good source for accurate information.

Glory to Wikipedia!

[apathy]

Dom a écrit :

Glory to Wikipedia!

It takes grants from George Soros' Open Society Institute.

You know, that social engineer/possible Nazi who can't stop screwing up our world and refuses to die?

[Birds]

it's pretty messed up at this point. someone needs to arbitrate it or else it falls apart, and the process of arbitration makes it inherently unreliable.

[xDDD]

apathy a écrit :

We'll just ignore the Richat Structure and evidence of a mega tsunami across Africa. Sure why not.

Man made climate change gets an uncritical free pass though.

Oh, but that's okay, that's only going back some 12,800 years. Us humans have since had such a firm grasp on our own history. I mean we can't even decide if Roman Emperor Sponsian, is f**king real or not.

LOL facts!
"CITIES NEVER GO UNDERWATER! Except in the very near future unless we stop emitting CO2 dude!!"

I strongly agree on us not knowing our history as well. Everything past ~6000 years ago is very questionable and speculative, nevermind 10,000+ years ago.

[Pierce Dalton]

apathy a écrit :

Dom a écrit :

Glory to Wikipedia!

It takes grants from George Soros' Open Society Institute.

You know, that social engineer/possible Nazi who can't stop screwing up our world and refuses to die?

Eh, I don't see any article there saying good things about Nazism tho (thankfully).

[Hobbit XIII]

:D a écrit :

Wikipedia is super inaccurate for anyone on the other side of the culture spectrum for them. Tons and TONS of unfounded accusations and labels on certain people.
And they don't scrutinize sources at all when it comes to the lies fitting their agenda, but when it is to the contrary it'll just be dismissed as an "unreliable source" and "misinformation. "

They make me sick and every time I see them begging for money I kind of hope that they don't get it and go out of business.

Show the pages and the location on them please that is what this thread is about.