would you still believe wikipedia if i shared freedom of information act releases that directly contradict wikipedia? (the releases also contradict npr, cnn, cbs, bbc, etc.)
If you think Wikipedia is biased, then I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy OAN, News Max, Fox News, and all that other right wing horse shit. Wikipedia is community consensus. It’s the only place I get my “news” from.
Wikipedia is biased by nature as a secondary source, just towards the political paradigm so you don’t recognize it as easily. In fact, here’s a Wikipedia page you might want to check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Hey does ProleWiki have a page talking about its own issues? Weird how “evil” and “biased” wikipedia will explictly tell you about possible issues and its own history without issue, but ProleWiki won’t.
But sure, wikipedia is the dishonest one. Lemme go see how objective ProleWiki is on topics it dislikes.
Sure. Just took a look at your edit though, and I feel like holding ProleWiki and Wikipedia to the same standards is a bit absurd, especially cause there aren’t people who go around using it as their main source of news like how boaratio is doing to wikipedia. Since ProleWiki is so much smaller, it would only make sense that the articles there are lower quality, there aren’t as many of them, and they have been less reviewed, no?
yes, wikipedia is community consensus and community consensus once was that iraq had wmd’s – the foia proved otherwise. consensus isn’t truth; it’s just the most popular opinion at the time.
the foia gives you what the us government tries to hide. it is literally the us government itself being legally forced to share its secrets to the american public because of a law that was passed decades before the us gov’t became fully captured by corporate interests and the epstein class.
Just because wiki says that doesn’t mean that was the community consensus, millions of people protested that war. In my country it is still the largest protest in history.
We’re not discussing the general public’s consensus.
We’re discussing Wikipedia’s consensus driven decision process and why it makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.
Wikipedia said that there was consensus and anyone w eyes and ears knew that was bullshit – as you’ve pointed out – but people still want to use Wikipedia as a source anyways.
this explains a lot about why you believe this.
would you still believe wikipedia if i shared freedom of information act releases that directly contradict wikipedia? (the releases also contradict npr, cnn, cbs, bbc, etc.)
I am always open to the truth. Please, do share.
go read wikipedia’s page about north korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
and then read the foia releases about north korea (or ateast the ones you can still access online): https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11749952/8255268
Removed by mod
If you think Wikipedia is biased, then I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy OAN, News Max, Fox News, and all that other right wing horse shit. Wikipedia is community consensus. It’s the only place I get my “news” from.
Wikipedia is biased by nature as a secondary source, just towards the political paradigm so you don’t recognize it as easily. In fact, here’s a Wikipedia page you might want to check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Hey does ProleWiki have a page talking about its own issues? Weird how “evil” and “biased” wikipedia will explictly tell you about possible issues and its own history without issue, but ProleWiki won’t.
But sure, wikipedia is the dishonest one. Lemme go see how objective ProleWiki is on topics it dislikes.
I wouldn’t know, I’ve barely used it.
Just checked and it doesn’t seem to, but considering it’s a much smaller and newer project than Wikipedia that would make sense.
Fair enough. Thank you for responding.
Sure. Just took a look at your edit though, and I feel like holding ProleWiki and Wikipedia to the same standards is a bit absurd, especially cause there aren’t people who go around using it as their main source of news like how boaratio is doing to wikipedia. Since ProleWiki is so much smaller, it would only make sense that the articles there are lower quality, there aren’t as many of them, and they have been less reviewed, no?
So I can edit Prolewiki to be more accurate and I won’t get banned, right?
Be my guest.
There’s a reason it’s not acceptable as a citation in university papers.
Absolutely. BTW, are you the same person as @[email protected]?
Yes
yes, wikipedia is community consensus and community consensus once was that iraq had wmd’s – the foia proved otherwise. consensus isn’t truth; it’s just the most popular opinion at the time.
the foia gives you what the us government tries to hide. it is literally the us government itself being legally forced to share its secrets to the american public because of a law that was passed decades before the us gov’t became fully captured by corporate interests and the epstein class.
To illustrate further: https://practicalpie.com/bandwagon-fallacy/
It really wasn’t.
here’s wikipedia’s consensus still framing the government’s wmd claims as ‘assertions’ while uncritically repeating them years after the iraqi invasion: https://wayback.qa-archive-it.org/all/20080911173302/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
The foia showed the government had doubts before the invasion – wikipedia didn’t.
Okay…?
Just because wiki says that doesn’t mean that was the community consensus, millions of people protested that war. In my country it is still the largest protest in history.
We’re not discussing the general public’s consensus.
We’re discussing Wikipedia’s consensus driven decision process and why it makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.
Wikipedia said that there was consensus and anyone w eyes and ears knew that was bullshit – as you’ve pointed out – but people still want to use Wikipedia as a source anyways.
Facts hurt their feelings, that’s why they resist wikipedia
Removed by mod
Lying is all they have, facts hurt their feelings. That’s why they remove comments that disprove their dogmas.