American Politics from 2019 on

[Cunt]

The Wiki article is much reduced due to lack of facts.

The diary: the adult problems look like Hunter Biden type of problems. Ashley probably wrote those.

Veritas or other forgers wrote the bits about Joe showering. Have not seen that page.

So you haven't heard Mr. O'Keefe's side of things, or what Sanders criticises Wikipedia for.

Got it. It's good to know what perspectives you are using.

[Tero]

I have no interest in a "journalist" that fakes stories. It's like Comer in congress (makes accusations) but with access to forgers.

He can post and publish whatever, it will not reach national media. Go discuss it with your Telegram buddies.

[Cunt]

I have no interest in a "journalist" that fakes stories.

Yet no interest in a criticism of wikipedia by one of its founders.

Sounds like reasoning or something.

As to his 'fake stories', it's the real ones that matter. Like the Pfizer exec melting down over being caught talking too much on a date, or the Epstein cover-up by a 'real' journalistic organization.

At least I know where your feelings are coming from.

[Tero]

I have no idea what your "real" stories are.

Personally, I have never found a benefit in believing conspiracies.

[Cunt]

I have no idea what your "real" stories are.

Personally, I have never found a benefit in believing conspiracies.

Not mine, O'Keefe's.

As to 'believing in conspiracies', you seem to want to ignore what the founder of Wikipedia had to say in critique of the site. So...ok I guess. As long as it agrees with your priors, it can keep slipping by your radar.

Conspiracies are real, Tero.



...even if they seem too big to be possible.

[Tero]

Not interested. I know what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

[Cunt]

lol

Reminds me of an old friend who used to say 'if you don't believe me, ask me!'


https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia ... blishment/

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

Of course, one should check wikipedia to really find out if they are propaganda.

I'm not going to, but the article does mention their courageous and clarifying contribution.

Wikipedia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

[pErvinalia]

Of course, one should check wikipedia to really find out if they are propaganda.

I'm not going to,

Of course you're not. That would require critical thinking as opposed to just parotting right wing talking points.

[JimC]

Cunt's parrot isn't dead.

It's just pining for the Fjords...

[Joe]

[Cunt]

https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia ... blishment/

Wikipedia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

I'll use them when I want a left-leaning propaganda source.

They're fine for that, as long as you can see that's what they are.

[pErvinalia]

So you are not willing to check for yourself if it's propaganda, but are happy to call it propaganda. Yeah, you're not parroting right wing talking points.

[Joe]

https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia ... blishment/

Wikipedia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

I'll use them when I want a left-leaning propaganda source.

They're fine for that, as long as you can see that's what they are.

Earth to Cunt.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot constantly monitor every contribution. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years (see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia). Additionally, it is possible that some errors may never be fixed. It is also possible for an edit correcting an error to later be reverted. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, and non-English Wikipedias.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, such as Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance.

Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources that vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).
Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, biases, education, and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors, and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions.

Most of us know this, which is why Wikipedia is generally used as one starting point for learning about a subject.

[Cunt]

Yup, if you don't believe them, ask them.

Or ask the founder, who described the problems at length, including which side of the political aisle is in control over there.

[Joe]

Or you can just check out their sources and draw your own conclusions.

Of course there's a risk to that. You might learn enough to realize how little you actually know. Some folks prefer to avoid that and preserve the illusion that they are knowledgeable.