Can it be trusted as a source of information?
Wikipedia
Joshua Cruz
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
singularityhub.com
twitter.com
Oliver Gray
it is an ok place to start for many topics
but anything controversial wiki is always leftist
Ryder Ross
Carson Williams
well if you use it to look up "early life" sections of certain people then it's pretty good
Jaxon Jones
>as a source of information
its not a source, look up the sources in sources section
Jaxson Gutierrez
Absolutely NOT. It's moderated by biased, history revisionist, that you cannot question.
Proof: go to a topic, go to the discussion area of said topic, use any fact with absolute proof that disagrees with their lies, fabrications, and word salad.
You'll be b& immediately
Isaac Reyes
the mods/adfmins over there run a Wikimafia leftist cabal. They censor anything that goes against their narrative and excrete a laundry list of dribble and excuses as to why they should delete your content. They are evil, and I have ceased interacting with them. I am ashamed I ever contributed to that site in the past
Joseph Barnes
Haha this. Don't expect it to last forever though.
For things that aren't at all conspiratorial or political, Wikipedia is great. This is to boost the credibility of the site overall. I.e. if you need to research various obscure forms of magnetism, use Wikipedia. If you want to research 9/11, don't use Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's 9/11 page was proof to me that the site is comped. Not even leftist echo chamber comped. Just plain comped.
Michael Reed
Not on any political matters, but in matters not politicised it is somewhat reliable.
Nathan Bell
No because a lot of recent articles about political events have shit like CNN and the Washington post listed as sources. You can't be a trustworthy source of information when the source of your information isn't trustworthy
Isaiah Moore
No, because it's riddled with lib bias. As with anything that claims to be "neutral". It's okay for scientific, non-political stuff.
Ian Barnes
Not on anything political.
Liam Mitchell
Not for politics
Carter Moore
examples of that?
Sebastian Howard
Of course not. Next thread.
Austin Bailey
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
>calling the waco burning an accident when the fbi took pictures posing with smiles in front of the ruins
Yeah. They're totally unbiased.
Brandon Ortiz
Be proactive in discovering shit out yourself.
Take any subject in which is political that has 2 arguments/sides/opinions.
Go to a wiki (there's will be left/liberal)
Don't edit there's or anything.
Just post the right wing view and add your citation.
It will be deleted and you will be banned
Dylan Thompson
this
Lincoln Flores
>but anything controversial wiki is always leftist
is that why wikipedia labels everything anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist evil?
Jayden Long
If it was trust worthy before, not anymore.
singularityhub.com
Xavier Foster
>Though tens of thousands of people participate in editing the site, the facts they add aren’t necessarily correct; even when citations are present
We need a fucking rightwing.wiki
Connor Jenkins
>Can it be trusted as a source of information?
Can you be trusted? I think not, trust but verify