Oh that! That's just a database of all human knowledge from the entirety of known history, that anyone...

>oh that! That's just a database of all human knowledge from the entirety of known history, that anyone, anywhere in the world, can freely access.

Attached: 1200px-Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg.png (1200x1378, 358K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>all human knowledge
I wish this was true
but after you finish highschool/your first year of uni you start to realize wikipedia is superficial as fuck

I can't access it in the middle of the Sahara.

why is it full of anime posts

lmao shutup faggot wikipedia has nice articles about graduate level stuff

99% of pages are plagarized from the site below it in a Google search, with no regard to accuracy

Dominated by "power users" that push their opinion as fact and ego power trip harder than 4channel jannies

Huge left wing bias and anything related to Israel is not allowed to be edited

>a database of all human knowledge
Haha, no.
>that anyone can access
Nope.
>anywhere in the world
Nope.
>freely access
Internet connection ain't free. Or did you mean freedom of decision what to look at? That's also disputable.
0.5/4 and I'm being generous with you.

If you go to a proper high school in a country with proper education standards, it's not even enough for that (in the final years).

you can if you have sat internet, but ya OP is wrong, fake, and gay.

>a database of all human knowledge
Excuse me, your Majesty, but may I introduce to you: DeletionPedia.org

/thread

All the teachers I once had told me not to use Wikipedia, as simple as that.

Attached: 69899632.png (306x269, 3K)

>don't know something
>Wikipedia has article about it and explains exactly what I needed
Thanks based Wikipedia!

Attached: large.jpg (500x536, 103K)

>half of it is wrong tho

find something wrong here than op
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0

[citation needed]

I've found historical articles have a huge political bias.
Third world countries downplaying their casualties.
British pretending shit was a victory.
Americans not knowing where their own culture comes from.

In what way, because of plagiarism?

They can't control the content and don't know how citations work. Wikipedia is really only as good as its citations. Sometimes those citations are circular.

When I was in high school teachers were also against Wikipedia. But when I went to university all professors encouraged people to use Wikipedia to get an impression about subjects.

Attached: 1546822308444.png (727x682, 168K)

its ok for a shot overview, and thats just it. It doesn't go into alot of depth and the sources linked below every article are more or less a joke

>teacher tells us not to use wikipedia
>she can't explain shit
>look up what she tried to explain in wikipedia
>get it in less than 10 minutes

they're butthurt that the internet is making their job redundant

I only use it to know music. It shows background of songs, how well a album performed, and etc. so I can know a artist better.

Their articles on graduate level mathematics are either missing or incomplete, and their english articles on any nonwestern culture are hilariously lacking, even non-english western cultures tend to be missing information/stub central/outright wrong. Not to mention the heavy political bias (and incorrect information) you get in any military hardware page.

It was sort of the same for me in high school, but my university profs were all pretty disdainful. There was one guy who used to say "read Wikipedia to get a general idea, and then delve into the literature to discover why that idea is wrong". I sort of agree. You begin to notice a lot of the sources are not credible, or the data sets are outdated or not comparable. Wikipedia is particularly bad for finance. There are tons of articles that will compare companies using financial statement information from 2-5 different years. I think the worst I ever saw was one company was listed as the "largest" producer of something, using 2013 data, but by the time I was reading that in early 2018 it had already fallen to fourth place. Yet it was being compared against other companies with 2016, 2015 and 2017 figures.

>database of all human knowledge
It's middle school level if you do not live in America.
>from the entirety of known history
Wrong.
>anyone can access
Wrong.
>anywhere in the world
Wrong.
>freely
Wrong.
0/5, fuck off and read a book.

>still using Wikipedia

Attached: 90166430-683B-44A9-BCE7-459B62818E84.png (250x202, 17K)

Israel and South Africa. According to Wikipedia, every wave of immigration into South Africa was a British expansion into indigenous territories. It would be hilarious if it weren't for the context.

>nothing but liberal propaganda
yikes

10/10

book encyclopedias are far worse than wikipedia

book encyclopedias suck but actual books on a specific subject tend to be far better. non-fiction books only ever reach a small audience and are much more likely to be written by somebody with an intense interest in the subject at hand. wikipedia is most commonly written by somebody hoping to reach a wide audience, with an intense interest in controlling information.

It's a database of surface level knowledge + marxist propaganda.

>at high school
Don't use Wikipedia. It's wrong most of the time and everyone can contribute which lowers the quality
>at college
Yeah I'd advise you use Wikipedia for your bachelor's degree. Just make sure you get the sources right.

You can't use wikipedia because it's a tertiary source you fucking tards.

It's a modern day Library of Alexandria.

that explains a lot

Wikipedia reflects the most popular opinions, not facts. That's a problem.

Attached: ad populum.png (720x1230, 165K)

This. For instance it reflects the opinion that the earth is a ball.

I tink you mean the heavy political bias and censoring site wide

It's an orb retard

>orb
>not disc

What's the site below it?

depends on the topic

oblate spheroid

>Dominated by "power users" that push their opinion as fact and ego power trip harder than 4channel jannies
This.

ITT: I'm so much smarter than wikipedia but can't get a job because of pajeets

For the vast majority of articles, the wiki page is just a direct copy of the first site below Wikipedia in the search results. It's why the shitty site isn't allowed by schools to be an actual source.

Also a propaganda tool

Nobody is talking about Indians, Paneer.

No, actually it's not allowed in schools because it's too easy.

You can source all the articles they cite in wikipedia and there's literally nothing wrong with them.

And all you pajeet tier undergrads should stop chirping until you actually finish a degree worth a shit inb4 college is a scam.

Everything wrong with Wikipedia is actually also true for academia in general. Everything "science"-related is overrated as fuck, almost a religion.

Attached: duck.jpg (1200x800, 102K)

You can pay firms to write biased puff pieces and then use them as citations on Wikipedia.

You don't need to be smart to spot bullshit online.

lol it is not like stallman is the word of god here
or even an authority
he just has a tiny group of incredibly vocal autistic drones

yet the first site below Wikipedia would be allowed in schools

I didn't know libraries were charging admission these days.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Yeah it's crazy how the money for the computers and internet connections in those PUBLIC libraries just shows up out of nowhere.

>ITT: butthurt nazis mad that their jewish conspiracy theories got BTFO by a wikipedia article

i guess the same way polacks see jews everywhere, you see polacks everywhere
both doesn't seem healthy

nice mansplaining

>all human knowledge
really? can i find the childhood memory of every person ever existed?
wikipedia is great but saying that all human knowledge from the entire known history is there is just wrong and a dangerous exaggeration

Almost always no

>Wikipedia a propaganda distribution platform consisting mostly of political agenda, anti-biology, anti-history, etc.
No thanks, cuck.

pretty sure israel government paided to block anyone except them editing the page if i remeber right

Wikipedia is meaningless, look at this screenshot. I says Jesus was the spawn of asscum when the devil came in marry's butt

that's not what the bible actually says and some kid cited this article for a report and turned it and nearly was expelled

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-07 at 9.09.39 PM.png (1964x584, 684K)

at least they write 'is believed'.
should do this in all articles

Yes, please play dumb for me.

Attached: 1553048592322 (2).jpg (741x741, 59K)

>constantly edited by seething techtrannies
That's gonna be a yikes from me friendo.
Have sex y'all.

Protip: To get rid of unwelcomed passages, delete the article and re-add it. Editing gives a history, that method doesn't. Pharma companies are using that trick to pwn n00bs.

They tell you that because they're afraid it can contain misinformation due to "everyone being able to edit it"
They want you to use sources with known, tracked down authors

Wikipedia, especially the history stuff, is comparable in info you might learn in an easy bachelor's-level class. Maybe it doesn't go quite in-depth compared to a textbook, but it has everything they'd want you to know on the test and more.
Primary sources are obviously better factually, but Wikipedia is excellent for entry-level knowledge. Found the article really interesting, but want to know more? Now you go to one of the sources or buy a book on it.
If you want a good summary of pretty much all human knowledge in recorded history, Wikipedia is the answer.

I just checked that website and clicked random page many times, all I could find were low effort low quality single paragraphs or shameless self biographies.
Nothing of value was lost

>than
Found it.

>all human knowledge
HAHAHAHA
Nooo not even remotely within the same order of magnitude.

Wheres the interjection

Attached: stallman int.webm (450x360, 2.89M)

>don't know anything about something
>Wikipedia has an article that is entirely impossible to parse because it was written by some freshman who's trying to show off his knowledge by playing buzzword bingo

This. Fucking mathematical wikis are full of trashy prof-talk. I get that encyclopedias are supposed to be massive collections of facts but at least spare me some reading and give 3-4 lines of explanations.

extremely jewed website, will never donate even a cent

Did you confuse Wikipedia with RationalWiki?

*blocks your path*

Attached: 6666669048680924138.png (1201x210, 89K)

Click any of the foreign language versions of the article and they're all either titled GNU/Linux or mention the relation with GNU in the first few paragraphs (note that GNU is often in bold text).

Dunno what's the deal with English speakers being so contrarian and wanting to spread misinformation.

Attached: tete.gif (808x606, 255K)

>t. never used the citations to conduct a more in depth research

Then go and make them better

>being old enough to remember my parents actually paying for a big slab of books
>being shocked that people were getting Encarta on one CD-ROM

We were advised on my uni course that Wikipedia is an excellent source of information, so long as you don't reference it directly. Instead using it as a starting point for a given topic and branching off from its own references was a great way to research. This is still true at least 95% of the time.

If things get too technical the ADHD editors start complaining it is too technical and that Wikipedia is not a text book. Next they start deleting things at random (things they do not understand) and the next editor starts complaining it lacks noteworthiness and it is up for deletion.

I used to be a contributor 10 years ago but gave up on the politicking and the deletionists.

>99% of pages are plagarized from the site below it in a Google search
>and then they end up higher in the Google rankings than the original site

Many Wikipedia pages are comparable to "Rational"Wiki pages in their inaccuracy and anti-factual information, and the extreme bias. This also affects technology related topics like programming languages and operating system specific pages, it's stupid as is anyone who defends it.

What's that phrase again, 'something by popularity/consenseus' as in it's content is determined by how many people believe in something regardless of whether it is true or not, simply because a certain agenda has more believers

The harmful thing about Wikipedia is that it sells itself as what your greentext when it is not. It enabled an entire generation of retards to quickly hit the Dunning-Krueger peak on a wide range of topics, but doesn't contain enough detailed knowledge to go past that.

More like a database of summaries of most human knowledge.

Wikipedia is dead to me after they removed the listing of countries by average iq.

Unironically wikipedia is the single greatest creation in history.

Wikipedia is high schoolers’ book reports all stored in one place. It’s a great place to read about (((history))) though