Comment on MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs
EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 1 day agoPracticing due diligence to make sure Wikipedia’s sources are legit isn’t difficult. You can check the sources listed on ever single Wikipedia entry yourself for bias. It’s not like they hide their sources. That alone is what makes it so valuable. Anyone trying to push a narrative can easily see it sourced as bullshit.
Kind of like how the article you linked is a worthless, factless, opinion piece about Wikipedia becoming “woke” due to the feelings of Larry Sanger being hurt. Nothing that article says is based on anything factual, and the only studies mentioned are wildly taken out of context.
Wikipedia let’s me do that analysis for myself, so I don’t get tricked into thinking an obvious piece of propaganda is real.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day ago
I agree with you that Wikipedia is good for finding sources and reading and coming to your own conclusions, but that’s not really the point of Wikipedia. If you can’t trust/believe the actual text of the pages and have to go and read every single linked article yourself then it defeats the purpose. It’s like getting cliff notes but having to go and read the full textbooks anyway.
The co-founders opinion is pretty important in the matter.
undrwater@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s always been a jumping-off point, not a primary source. It’s still fantastic that way.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day ago
Unfortunately that’s not how it’s used. It’s used as a primary source most of the time even on here.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
That’s the issze of the user.
undrwater@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Sure, but many will cite a news organization’s opinion page as fact. Is this a good reason for any administration to target opinion pages?
The administration is supposed to represent the Constitution, not attack it.
Remember your constitution; particularly the 1st amendment.