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
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
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
How would you go about fixing that? You'd think the most popular educational site on the internet should offer real information.
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
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
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
it's only good for as a catalogue or list
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
>Filled to the brim with political propaganda >hard bias towards the left Point out some examples?
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
>leftist bias present in a huge number of articles Can you point out some, and explain how they are biased?
Camden Cooper
white replacement as a conspiracy theory
Jayden Sanders
You're know you're going to reject any examples given.
Dylan Bennett
I started this thread because I wanted to hear opinions.
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
White pride as a racist term but pride of all other races is seen as acceptable
All historical and social pages are edited by the Jews to push their evil agenda
Oliver Cooper
You know one of Wikipedia's creator is an Ayn Rand loving shill, right?
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
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
You mean like how they don't enforce use of BCE/CE? Ah yes, extremely jewish
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
they're incompetent to run a website and ask for at least 10 times the money it takes to run it
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
As a rule of thumb, if people complain about something being "jewish controlled" and "fascist controlled" it's probably good
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
For non-political matters its ok. For anything political it's zionist trash.
Logan Hernandez
wikipedia has remarkably little bias in relation to its size and influence
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
One of the wonders of the modern world.
Connor Walker
based and schizopilled
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
metapedia actually
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.
If I’m not mistaken, those same fagnuts also feel the Christian Bible is “too liberal” and have done a conservative edit.
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.
>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
MediaWiki is the worst wiki software ever.
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
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
>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.
Would you prefer some inbred king who only got into power because of his daddy
Henry Morgan
Thst is why it is called encyclopedia
Christopher Wright
>leftist You mean liberal. I hate Americans.
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
modern left has as much to do with liberalism (classic liberalism) as a buffalo has to do with a pocket watch.
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
Scholarly studies aren't allowed to reference wikipedia
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
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
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
*quickly brigades any less-than-literally-lenin articles with xir crew* psssh nothing personal schizo
>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
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".
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
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."
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
I did good in the interview and got the job thanks to reading like 10 wikipedia pages 2 hours before it
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
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.