What does Jow Forums genuinely think of Wikipedia?

Blake Wood
Blake Wood

What does Jow Forums genuinely think of Wikipedia?

It's handy, sure, but are people too reliant on it? It is it more harmful than it is helpful? Is it doomed? Despite being among the most popular sites on the internet it struggles to maintain contributors and hasn't had a contributor count that comes close to reflecting the amount of articles it has that require upkeep since the early 00's

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

Other urls found in this thread:

conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=429:zionist-control-of-wikipedia&Itemid=118
youtu.be/hMBramnCg_s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Replacement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pride
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:WMFOffice_-_Ban_Proposal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey#Relationships

Jonathan Moore
Jonathan Moore

Jewish media. Literally.

Caleb Moore
Caleb Moore

Its a great resource for getting base-level knowledge about pretty much anything. The sources used are fantastic too.
What I want to know is how high on the paranoid schizo chart do you have to be to believe that Wikipedia "leans too far left", so far in fact someone created a "right leaning Wikipedia"?

Chase Watson
Chase Watson

it's like reading a children's book. a great quick reference and introduction to a topic, but no real information exists on there

Bentley Gutierrez
Bentley Gutierrez

How would you go about fixing that? You'd think the most popular educational site on the internet should offer real information.

Attached: took-this-image-from-the-wikipedia-article-'list-of-catgirls'-and-yes-that-is-an-actual-ar (43 KB, 220x210)

Nathan Richardson
Nathan Richardson

has history of edits
sources listed
information
scientific method can be used to prove texts
history, people and brands are information that is true or false doesnt matter only educational scenarios to not do the same mistakes
Simulate all choices and pick working end result
good website imo

Adrian Bell
Adrian Bell

It's okay for highschool level knowledge in some areas, less in others. While it can have information on higher end subjects (mainly in STEM), it isn't useful regarding them really, you're better off downloading a springer-verlag book off libgen and browsing through that for anything in depth.
However it's a decent starting place, although you have to be wary of wrong information.
The talk sections are a gold mine of people being retarded.
Also, wiki wars.

Kayden Edwards
Kayden Edwards

Additional since I forgot: The text only size of it is quite small, so it's great for downloading, unpacking and taking places where you won't have internet connection. I like having it on my tablet so I can read random wikipedia articles on my tablet while on the plane

Henry Young
Henry Young

it's only good for as a catalogue or list

Josiah Sanchez
Josiah Sanchez

As with many things on the internet it was promising but under delivered.
provides only basic information of a given topic
Filled to the brim with political propaganda
hard bias towards the left
has a inner circle of editors who frown on newcomers (even if they have legitimate knowledge on the subject)
no coordination between pages on different countries (your experience can vary wildly depending on your language)
with the proliferation of search engines it became obsolete as now you can search information more easily and with different sources for fact checking

Nolan Roberts
Nolan Roberts

Filled to the brim with political propaganda
hard bias towards the left
Point out some examples?

David Harris
David Harris

conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
Suit yourself

Jace Cox
Jace Cox

Can you tell me what your favorite examples are?

Lincoln Adams
Lincoln Adams

you're playing willfully ignorant if you're suggesting you have to be paranoid schizo to acknowledge the leftist bias present in a huge number of articles on wikipedia

Easton Powell
Easton Powell

leftist bias present in a huge number of articles
Can you point out some, and explain how they are biased?

Camden Cooper
Camden Cooper

white replacement as a conspiracy theory

Jayden Sanders
Jayden Sanders

You're know you're going to reject any examples given.

Dylan Bennett
Dylan Bennett

I started this thread because I wanted to hear opinions.

Chase Myers
Chase Myers

Fpbp. Just look at those jewish events where they invite contributers and coerce them into writing in their favour. The math and physics content is good, but the history and anything that can be shoahd is not truastworthy

William Foster
William Foster

White pride as a racist term but pride of all other races is seen as acceptable

Attached: picture-(4).jpg (30 KB, 474x355)

Jack Brown
Jack Brown

All historical and social pages are edited by the Jews to push their evil agenda

Oliver Cooper
Oliver Cooper

You know one of Wikipedia's creator is an Ayn Rand loving shill, right?

Kevin Powell
Kevin Powell

Amazing site, Wikimedia projects tend to be based, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks and Wikispecies are also amazing. You should contribute if you can.

Luke Martin
Luke Martin

Just name a few. All I know is that german politician edit their wikipedia post in favor for them. There is even a company that sells wikipedia edits as a service.

Jaxon Kelly
Jaxon Kelly

You mean like how they don't enforce use of BCE/CE? Ah yes, extremely jewish

Samuel White
Samuel White

ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=429:zionist-control-of-wikipedia&Itemid=118

ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=429:zionist-control-of-wikipedia&Itemid=118

youtu.be/hMBramnCg_s

No need for strawman arguments rabbi

Attached: picture-(3).jpg (54 KB, 418x500)

Caleb Robinson
Caleb Robinson

yeah and ayn rand is a dumb empowered lolbteratian female what is your point

James Lewis
James Lewis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars

Attached: 180px-Wikipe-tan-full-length.svg.png (50 KB, 180x342)

Chase Rodriguez
Chase Rodriguez

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Replacement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pride

Bentley Bennett
Bentley Bennett

I can't read all of this now but what is wrong with these articles? Only read the intro to the first one and it seemed fine.

Caleb Thomas
Caleb Thomas

they're incompetent to run a website and ask for at least 10 times the money it takes to run it

Parker Martinez
Parker Martinez

Specialized wikis are way better.

If you want real knowledge there’s a million free lectures and specialty channels on jewtube which is much a more easily accessible medium and more accurate to boot.

Logan Powell
Logan Powell

As a rule of thumb, if people complain about something being "jewish controlled" and "fascist controlled" it's probably good

Noah Peterson
Noah Peterson

A generally useful resource, but I think it increases the intensity and prevalence of poorly read armchair experts. I have a few friends who, between Reddit, Wikipedia, and Dan Carlin, seem to think they've mastered history and philosophy without ever picking up a book. That's mostly irritating though, I don't think it has caused any deep societal issues. Those people were never going to learn or read deeply to begin with.

When you tackle a topic, even (or perhaps particularly) a divisive, political one, it should be cause for concern when the list of sources is predominated by: Newsweek, The Independent, the SPLC, Times of Israel, ThinkProgress, Mother Jones, Media Matters, the Atlantic, and the Guardian.
You don't need to believe in the topic at hand to realize that those are some of the most ideologically slanted publications that still manage to pass muster as citation worthy. Hell, I'd argue half of those would only be worth citing to if a given quote could only be found in an interview with them.

Owen Phillips
Owen Phillips

For non-political matters its ok.
For anything political it's zionist trash.

Logan Hernandez
Logan Hernandez

wikipedia has remarkably little bias in relation to its size and influence

Ryan Collins
Ryan Collins

is conservapedia more your thing

Attached: >=D.gif (2.98 MB, 220x242)

Logan Campbell
Logan Campbell

I'm gonna need a sauce on some actually biased elements in an article. The citations only coming from liberal media is to be expected if the only outlets reporting on the phenomena are liberal. Show me a Fox News article on the Great Replacement and you'll be justified in your complaint that they aren't represented on wikipedia.

Luke Rivera
Luke Rivera

One of the wonders of the modern world.

Connor Walker
Connor Walker

based and schizopilled

Andrew Perry
Andrew Perry

the trouble is that editors frequently delete or merge well written and notable articles with trash stubs about something irrelevant.
most recently that i have noticed, a well written article on "universalizing religions" (religions that want to convert all humanity, and animals, and even aliens, if they exist)
was deleted and replaced by a footnote on the 500 word stub article of a literally-who theologian.

i feel that this kind of behavior goes beyond the mere vanity and personal conflicts of editors, and veers more into an authoritarian and hyper-politicized censorship of any kind of information they deem dangerous.

Owen Baker
Owen Baker

metapedia actually

Easton Green
Easton Green

If you simply jewgle wikipedia anti-semitic, wikipedia anti-jewish, wikipedia antizionist, you'll find tons of complaints from right-leaning jews who say the same shit you're saying, but blame it on liberals and muslims. I think you're both fucking retarded, and the reason why wikipedia has bias is because it's a democratic encyclopedia, and democracy in a globalized world means nothing more than the loudest and persistent voices getting what they want, while everyone else gets fucked. It's not some grand conspiracy, it's just the way this shitty world works now.

Eli Cooper
Eli Cooper

Attached: 1548829765578.jpg (1.12 MB, 3666x3284)

Alexander Barnes
Alexander Barnes

If I’m not mistaken, those same fagnuts also feel the Christian Bible is “too liberal” and have done a conservative edit.

Kevin Diaz
Kevin Diaz

Great, but also greatly misunderstood. Wikipedia exists to be a source aggregator, with an extra summary for quick reading pleasure. Sadly, people don't understand this, and think the extra blurb is the main object, and not the sources.

Wow, color me surprised. Turns out that when 80% of the world (or rather, those who write sources) are left-aligned, the Wikipedia articles will be too. Want to change it? Just have a paper published in which you write with a right-wing tone. None of this is Wikipedia's fault, nor the fault of its editors. You can write the most vile, horrible, inhuman shit on Wikipedia articlespace as long as you have a proper source to back it up. That nobody wants to write such sources is a different problem, one that you can fix.

Attached: Wikipe-tan-Miko.png (407 KB, 900x2100)

Samuel Jenkins
Samuel Jenkins

Want to change it? Just have a paper published in which you write with a right-wing tone. None of this is Wikipedia's fault, nor the fault of its editors. You can write the most vile, horrible, inhuman shit on Wikipedia articlespace as long as you have a proper source to back it up. That nobody wants to write such sources is a different problem, one that you can fix.
Doesn't it hurt to lie this hard?

Austin Phillips
Austin Phillips

MediaWiki is the worst wiki software ever.

Carter Wright
Carter Wright

Perhaps you'll have trouble finding a publisher who wants to publish it. But that's not Wikipedia's fault. Wikipedia just summarizes its sources. I'm 6K and counting on enWiki, so I know how this shit works.

Liam Cooper
Liam Cooper

currently the sysops are having a mental breakdown. they're in open revolt of the WikiMedia Foundation. 5 Sysops have been banned/resigned in protest. They're reversing WMF's bans. It's literally going nuclear. Accusations of GAMERGATE 2.0 have been thrown by the Chair of the WikiMedia Foundation. (The chair, full disclosure, is in a lesbian relationship with a user who was involved in setting this bomb off.)
who will win? will wikipedia explode? will jimmy "jimbo bimbo bopper" wales resign? all this and more in the following links

Drama here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram

and here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:WMFOffice_-_Ban_Proposal

Attached: stupidassholes.jpg (64 KB, 640x432)

Hudson Phillips
Hudson Phillips

jewish media
Let me tell you faggots what happens
Shit source makes some study/post
Wikipedia puts it on their references
future studies reference wikipedia
Top kek. No recognition for the real author unless Noble prize level.

tfw bamboozled by free information

Attached: carlmaga.png (454 KB, 810x688)

Sebastian Sanders
Sebastian Sanders

Would you prefer some inbred king who only got into power because of his daddy

Henry Morgan
Henry Morgan

Thst is why it is called encyclopedia

Christopher Wright
Christopher Wright

leftist
You mean liberal. I hate Americans.

David Stewart
David Stewart

left-aligned
Jesus Christ stop talking about liberalism like it's left. Wikipedia isn't leftist, it's liberal for the most part.

Tyler Gomez
Tyler Gomez

modern left has as much to do with liberalism (classic liberalism) as a buffalo has to do with a pocket watch.

Ryder Perry
Ryder Perry

address the role of zionist israeli groups mass editing and controlling the wiki then i might take you seriously. Has nothing to do with left wing right wing. Its about zionism and jewish domination over information

Parker Adams
Parker Adams

Scholarly studies aren't allowed to reference wikipedia

Cooper Sanchez
Cooper Sanchez

Great, but also greatly misunderstood. Wikipedia exists to be a source aggregator, with an extra summary for quick reading pleasure. Sadly, people don't understand this, and think the extra blurb is the main object, and not the sources.
Source on this?

Liam Fisher
Liam Fisher

You absolute fucking scum of the earth moron. You worthless fucking animal. You need a source on someone's opinion? He's clearly stating how he views wikipedia, and suggesting that others treat it that way. He's not saying that's what they (jimmy wales and co) set out to do. He's saying that's how it should be used. Asking for a source on his opinion is like asking a guy who says "burger is good" for a source on that. The source is him you fucking idiot. It's a statement of perception, not of fact. Thought it is true that in academic circles that is how wikipedia is used, and it is the only way one can use it. Anyway, are you this fucking braindead that you can't tell the difference? You should be ashamed of yourself. There is nothing you can possibly say or do that will redeem you. I hope you kill yourself tonight. Dilate. Dbdiaf. Kys. Fuck you.

Hudson Green
Hudson Green

A good free and open site that respects users' privacy. One of the few good parts of the internet left.
You are free to make your own "unbiased" wiki. There's no secret algorithm to copy, the source code has always been publicly available, storage costs are very low, and nobody is going to stop you. Please do that instead of whining about one of the last sites that cares about free knowledge. Focus that whining toward Youtube and Facebook.

Wyatt Kelly
Wyatt Kelly

*quickly brigades any less-than-literally-lenin articles with xir crew*
psssh nothing personal schizo

Attached: serveimage-1.jpg (229 KB, 1303x786)

Ian Campbell
Ian Campbell

Wikipedia exists to be a source aggregator
Sure sounds like he's stating this as if it were a fact to me.

greatly misunderstood
people don't understand this, and think the extra blurb is the main object, and not the sources.
Stating this as if implying the people who think of it as its own content and not an index of external sources are not subjectively wrong, but objectively misinformed

Completely possible I'm eating some kind of bait here though

Attached: Wikipe-tanCrazy.gif (73 KB, 250x200)

Jayden Harris
Jayden Harris

Just mostly propaganda.
I don't mean in the "Jews control the world" way. But literal articles are "protected" by groups that will either edit it back right away or get their 30+ sockpuppets to back them up in "debates".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey#Relationships

Is a great example - her book explains she slapped her ex once, he blocked the exit and told her she wasn't allowed to leave, so she punched him twice and threw him to the floor, then he blocked it again and she punched him again, then ran away and he followed her, tried to grab her out of the car and she fought him off.

The article makes it seem like she abused him. Why? Because she's a meanie who didn't want to fight a MTF who legit nearly killed a female fighter

Juan Martinez
Juan Martinez

we're just pointing out the obvious buddy. Only a fool or a jew would reply to criticism by imploring them to "create their own."

Attached: America.png (409 KB, 630x832)

Juan Brown
Juan Brown

Apart from the sources which I agree are horrible even for the german article does the articles miss represent the topic? Reading it so far I don't see anything wrong with the article. Then again I never read anything about the great replacement.

Logan Price
Logan Price

I did good in the interview and got the job thanks to reading like 10 wikipedia pages 2 hours before it

Isaiah Hall
Isaiah Hall

It's fucking amazing on the outside and scary on the inside. Basically like the rest of the Interwebz.

Reality has a leftist bias, deal with it brainlet.

Brayden Rogers
Brayden Rogers

I would rather the article be shorter than include only these sources. If they’re citing to the SPLC and ThinkProgress, they might as well include perspective from RedIce, Taki’s Mag, or whatever the current far right-biased news sources are right now. Instead people claim that those are just propaganda, or too extreme, to include. That is nonsense. Either have both or neither.

I’ve worked on academic journals, and this sort of sloppy, biased research and citation work is a contributor to the slow decline of academic discourse. Just because you can pull information from a series of one-sided sources doesn’t mean you should.

I’ll continue to use Wikipedia when I need to know what the climate is generally like in a distant country, or how much the average tiger weighs, but not for anything beyond those inconsequential, superficial facts.

Ethan Robinson
Ethan Robinson

//boards.Jow Forums.org/pol/
//boards.4channel.org/out/

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit