Wikipedia

[76561199628031747]

Do people actually site that place as a source for anything? lmao

[Tommy Salami]

Originally posted by Chaosolous:

Originally posted by The Duce:

It's called lying by omission, Henry. Try and keep up.

I'm not going to argue, I'm just curious. What exactly are you implying? Can you provide an example?

You have activist editors that will delete/edit information that they deem "unnecessary" or "irrelevant" (only to them because they don't like it).

Every Wikipedia page has a "talk" section where you can sometimes find the editors bickering about these things with each other.

Editors that have been contributing to the site for decades have quit over these activist editors coming in and just straight up deleting entries.

It's been some years since I've really dug through Wikipedia entries for things but a good example is any controversial topic that has credible evidence that goes against mainstream opinion. I'm sure you can find some stuff with covid or libel about doctors that spoke out against the vaccine.

That said, Wikipedia is fine if you're looking for some basic info on most things.

[Vinz Clortho]

Universities deduct points from you if you use it as a source lol

[Soft Wumbo]

it is accurate for basic things ,non political or religion things

[Midnight Sky ✨🌙✨]

Originally posted by Coeur de Bouddha:

Universities deduct points from you if you use it as a source lol

For good reason.

[Raelic]

Originally posted by Azza ☠:

Normally it will tell you the history of something, including the good and the bad. So I can see why some might dislike that. It's merely a "Oh noes, they said a bad thing about who I worship and assume to be perfect, my disillusion is ruined" thing.

Works both ways, so they get hate from either side in an argument sometimes. It's like politics. Politicans don't say things because if you say plans in a concrete fashion SOMEONE is going to get upset.

People get upset by things that aren't 100% negative too. If they are against something, they can't stand to even see the good things that something does.

[Bagel]

Let me guess, it’s best to use telegram for any kind of information? First it was the mainstream media, now it’s wikipedia that is a thorn in the eye of right wingers and putinists for not supporting their lies and propaganda.

I’ll be using Wikipedia even more now.

[Mauserich]

Originally posted by Azza ☠:

Wikipedia is about 80% facts and can be used as a starting point for research.
...

[Azza ☠]

Originally posted by Raelic:

Originally posted by Azza ☠:

Normally it will tell you the history of something, including the good and the bad. So I can see why some might dislike that. It's merely a "Oh noes, they said a bad thing about who I worship and assume to be perfect, my disillusion is ruined" thing.

Works both ways, so they get hate from either side in an argument sometimes. It's like politics. Politicans don't say things because if you say plans in a concrete fashion SOMEONE is going to get upset.

People get upset by things that aren't 100% negative too. If they are against something, they can't stand to even see the good things that something does.

True. The bias can go either way. That is why quite a few edits are instantly removed upon it, but mixed individuals all get their say and the valid ones later on remain.

[76561199628031747]

Originally posted by Hairy Hands Harry:

Originally posted by Doctor ♥♥♥♥ Respect:

No, if it says the opposite of what i want to believe i just edit the article. Like everyone else does

Nope. You can't just do that anymore. And people will immediately change it back to the truth.

well not the truth, bit whatever their bias happens to be.

[76561199628031747]

Originally posted by Donut:

Let me guess, it’s best to use telegram for any kind of information? First it was the mainstream media, now it’s wikipedia that is a thorn in the eye of right wingers and putinists for not supporting their lies and propaganda.

I’ll be using Wikipedia even more now.

im glad, itll be even more hilarious

[76561199628031747]

Originally posted by Hobbit XIII:

Originally posted by Hairy Hands Harry:

Nope. You can't just do that anymore. And people will immediately change it back to the truth.

oh they are lying what a none surprise.

Wikipedia? I mean you can make it say whatever you want regardless of the truth.

[Good Night Owl]

I believe so.

For anyone who doesn't know, Wikipedia was SUPER unreliable around 2008, so much so that this parody was made

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY

This was because literally anyone could edit an article, and the moderation wasn't very good. This issue is long gone now.

[76561199099449901]

One of my textbooks in school did, (We were not allowed to use W as a source though(

[Azza ☠]

Originally posted by Doctor ♥♥♥♥ Respect:

Originally posted by Hobbit XIII:

oh they are lying what a none surprise.

Wikipedia? I mean you can make it say whatever you want regardless of the truth.

Why not create a new one called "Truthipedia" and you can spew your "truths" upon it while refusing to even paid the co-founders who created it and get Russian money to even fund it? Everything that goes against your "truth" can then just be called "fake news". Similar to how a cult works.

You will be surprised how many got banned off Truth Social for their differing view points, even if of actual facts. It's like a funny little echo chamber.

[Hobbit XIII]

Originally posted by Doctor ♥♥♥♥ Respect:

Originally posted by Hobbit XIII:

oh they are lying what a none surprise.

Wikipedia? I mean you can make it say whatever you want regardless of the truth.

you use an alt on a forum nobody cares about .
A little precious are you not?