I downloaded the entirety of wikipedia as of 2024 to use as a reference for “truth” in the post-slop world. Maybe I should grab the 2022 version as well just in case…
Why would wikipedia of all things be your go to for that?
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.
Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date
How did you determine that?
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.
True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren’t.
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 were wrong.
Because I see the things they’re getting from Wikipedia and I am them, and they admit they didn’t actually check the sources.
I’ve have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.
How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?
I’ll click on them and then read them.
Here are two pages I’ve gone through a lot I can verify have correct citations in them. In fact, one of the citations in one of these is my research! which I know for certain was cited correctly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
I’ll click on them and then read them.
And how will that allow you to know if they’re right or not?
NATOpedia is a great resource if you go in with an assumption of a pro-western bias, but a source of truth lmao.
Someone is mad their sources got removed for not being credible.
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!
What in the fuck are you talking about
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.
Well you’re free to submit sources that are credible and challenge that old ones aren’t.
Wikipedia certainly doesn’t need AI to fuck up their articles.
Plenty of biased, incorrect stuff done by themselves.Link the incorrect stuff
80% of political stuff or with political importance.
I clicked all the words in your comment but none of them opened a browser window
not interested in doing work for others.
There have been plenty instances of manipulation over the years and shady practices in the organisation itself.
Unbelievable there are still so many gullible people still thinking it’s a reputable source.
if you love it so much for some reason then keep using it.
garbage in, garbage outWhen you make claims, you give proof. That’s how things work in reality.
Wikipedia has a giant article regurgitating the false claims from the extremist Falun Gong cult that China is stealing their organs.
Link or gtfo, let people check the sources themselves
Here you go, Would you like me to cut your food for you too?
“Here’s a thing I believe in”
“I would like proof it is a thing”
“What are you, stupid? Don’t ask me for proof.”
I read most this article and don’t see how any of it is false or misinformation. Literally the first word in the page is “alleged”, and it’s full of arguments with linked citations from both sides
Clearly we’re the sheeple for accepting sources and citations and they’re the only one who can see the truth between the lines of how his favorite nation is actually misunderstood.
