This guy is a troll and he’s going to keep asking questions as long as people keep answering them.
I’m just going to block him and move on; got no time to suffer fools like this any more.
Why would wikipedia of all things be your go to for that?
haloduder@thelemmy.club 1 day ago
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Man, you people really loath anyone who doesn’t just shut up and agree.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 day ago
NATOpedia is a great resource if you go in with an assumption of a pro-western bias, but a source of truth lmao.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Someone is mad their sources got removed for not being credible.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
What a shock that someone who pretends to be an anarchist would go to bat to defend the reliablity of far right western propaganda outlets like Radio Free Asia, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Remember, if it doesn’t’ have the Western Neo-liberal seal of approval, it’s not credible and should be removed, that’s the anarchist way!
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours ago
What in the fuck are you talking about
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
A lot of western liberals really do treat it like the Holy Scripture. Any intelligence agencies would just have to pay a few admins and higher some people to sculpt the list of “reliable sources” that Wikipedia uses and they can basically fully control what hundreds of millions of neoliberals believe.
And they have.
a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
You’re just salty that the russian and chinese propaganda edits are thrown out as soon as they pop up lol
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
See? You’ve just straight up given up the game, immediately disregarding any pretense that you ever cared about reliable sources or honestly, and just straight up admit that it’s only about politics alliegence. You will believe anything Wikipedia tells you, even if it openly comes from western propaganda outlets like the Victims of Communism Foundation or Radio Free Asia, because they agree with your politics.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Well you’re free to submit sources that are credible and challenge that old ones aren’t.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I tried that once, a bunch of power users got together and tried to dox me
arararagi@ani.social 1 day ago
I’m not using the conservative pedia.
NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date; its perceived unreliability as to its correctness is largely a misunderstanding that arose from misconceptions as to why one can’t (or shouldn’t, depending on case) cite it in academia. People think that it can’t be cited because of its unreliability but in reality it’s simply because it’s a third hand source; i.e. a resource.
Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
How did you determine that?
True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren’t.
crash_thepose@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
How do you know they often aren’t? I’m an academic and regularly use wikipedia to find citations for sources. I’ve have yet to come across any citations that weren’t wrong.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Because I see the things they’re getting from Wikipedia and I am them, and they admit they didn’t actually check the sources.
How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?
andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 day ago
For anything that is not politically contentious, it’s very good.
There are communities of people which hyperfixate on certain topics. Think dinosaurs and trains. If a serious Dino-head sees a mistake about the length of Diplodocus, they are going to drop everything and fix it immediately.
I routinely check wiki sources - I’ve taught a lot of college kids that as a way to quickly find sources for papers. Most of the time, topics I know a lot about from my own educational background match what I see on wiki and cite the same kinds of sources I would use.
It’s not perfect - there’s the infamous story of an American teenager writing all of Scots Wikipedia without knowing any Scots - but you have to respect the fact that there are a lot of people who are obsessed with certain topics and will watch their pet articles like a hawk.