🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 13:34:55 UTC No. 16168962
Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource? I read wikipedia science articles a lot and sometimes wonder if things are correct. I assume things that are referenced to academic papers are going to have a good chance of being correct, but it's not uncommon for half the article to be unsourced. Sometimes i'll check the Talk page of an article to see if people are complaining about stuff in the article, and while I've seen it happen a few times it doesn't seem that common, so I assume most articles are decent.
Do you have any examples of science articles on Wikipedia that are blatantly wrong? Not just because you have a hunch they're wrong, but you actually know some statement is verifiably incorrect.
While the Out of Africa theory is often debated on /sci/, the Talk page on wikipedia is basically empty, which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:
The Climate Change article though has almost 100 pages of people arguing against the content of the article, with lots of comments like this one for example. So I assume there is likely problems with the article content, or important information isn't being included
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 13:54:57 UTC No. 16168979
unfunny retard
Cult of Passion at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:03:30 UTC No. 16168996
>>16168979
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li
no i am
Cult of Passion at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:07:19 UTC No. 16169002
>>16168962
>science resource
Youre wading through militarized propaganda cliques, none of that is "science".
>which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the article.
Actual scientists get kicked, even out of Harvard...where the fuck have you been the last 10 years?!
I do research in both of those fields, I wouldnt even look for research in those fields on wikipedia (lmao...no....). I work with direct papers and peers, youre not allowed in except through me.
Cult of Passion at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:09:04 UTC No. 16169004
>>16168962
>Out of Africa
Evolutionary Biology (Hybridizations/Symbosis).
>Climate Change
GeoPhysics or GeoEngineering?
Heh...
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:09:15 UTC No. 16169006
Wikipedia is completely ideologically captured. Even its co-founded denounces it now, and Jimbo himself sounds so blackpilled about it (serving purely as a mascot nowadays) he might as well join in formally denouncing it.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:17:16 UTC No. 16169019
It's good, don't listen to schizos. Just like with anything, you should check the sources and not believe everything at face value, but you are already doing that. I would be skeptical of recent information and debates, anything political, but for general science resource? It's safe. No one cares about the correct distance between Mercury and the Sun except the nerds that want to have it right.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:19:01 UTC No. 16169020
>>16168962
wikipedia is great as a general science source yes, the kind of people who disagree with it are the same ones triggered by out of africa theory (by the way noone in modern science disputes it, it's just retards here)
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:19:36 UTC No. 16169021
>>16169002
by the way this person is a schizophrenic off his meds that goes for 100s of replies talking to himself
check the archive for his name
Cult of Passion at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:25:52 UTC No. 16169038
>>16169021
>Evolutionary Biology (Hybridizations/Symbosis).
You dont have a PhD in ANYTHING....DO YOU?!?
>>16169019
>you should check the sources
Hes not interested in reading research papers in fields he has zero technical training in....THIS IS WHY YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND PROPAGANDA.
YOURE A FUCKING SLAVE BECAUSE YOURE TOO STUPID TO NOT BE.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:27:47 UTC No. 16169042
>>16169020
>some guy on the internet tells you so its okay
Look, its wikipedia in action.
Cult of Passion at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:28:44 UTC No. 16169044
>>16169020
>the kind of people who disagree with it are the same ones triggered by out of africa theory
Youre not a Geneticist, neither Evolutionary Biologist.
The ones that ree about it got fired from tenure....youre a LARPing jackass.
>>16169021
>>16169019
Same for these retards.
IDEOLOGICALLY CAPTURED SOULS.
GET THE FUCK OUT, "CULTURAL-SCIENTISTS".
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:29:49 UTC No. 16169047
>>16169019
Burn in hell, DEI nigger.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:31:30 UTC No. 16169055
>>16169042
that is not how wikipedia works, it's a community run website with standards for citations and sources
dilate
Cult of Passion at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:33:43 UTC No. 16169059
>>16169019
>Mercury
I entered a town called that in my Caves of Qud game this evening.
I need 100% (or median equivalent) rigor, STAT! (STAT means bong hit time. I have problem but Im meaning well.)
Cult of Passion at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:52:56 UTC No. 16169079
>>16168962
>Do you have any examples of science articles on Wikipedia that are blatantly wrong? Not just because you have a hunch they're wrong, but you actually know some statement is verifiably incorrect.
Yes.
Everything on corona or climate change.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 15:04:16 UTC No. 16169085
>>16168962
>While the Out of Africa theory is often debated on /sci/, the Talk page on wikipedia is basically empty, which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the article.
Bait:
>Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Shovelling stuff into archives is the time tested method, and people like OP fall for it, every single time.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 16:10:16 UTC No. 16169172
>>16169006
The political sections are, and some of politically contentious science topis, but that's only like 1% of the content. I mostly read space stuff and ancient history stuff. There's very few, if any, politically charged articles in there
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 16:11:56 UTC No. 16169180
>>16169172
>the two most politically sensitive topics
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 16:13:30 UTC No. 16169186
>>16169085
>>Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
I didn't even notice that. Gee, now i feel like a dirty wikipedia admin. 4 is a few, but very contentious topics tend to have dozens. Still, looks like a few people are arguing there
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 16:18:00 UTC No. 16169195
>>16169180
space and ancient history ? If I read an article about galaxies, or an article about dinosaurs, there's pretty much zero political comments or anything people might get offended by.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 16:26:07 UTC No. 16169206
>>16168962
Wikipedia is okay as a *guide*, but it should be the *beginning* of your research on a topic, not the end. Follow citations in a Wikipedia article to the original papers, and then follow those papers to papers citing or cited by them, branch out and get a fuller picture of whatever topic is discussed.
You have to remember - Wiki articles are written to be cliff notes summaries of topics, and the people writing these summaries are volunteers and rarely experts.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 17:25:34 UTC No. 16169291
>>16169206
this
don't let it be the end of your research but don't dismiss it either
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 17:26:07 UTC No. 16169292
>>16169195
anon is probably a christian and is upset about the world being older than 6000 years
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 17:29:02 UTC No. 16169295
>>16169186
About 20 years ago I was a Wiki writer. Not an editor, I wrote entire articles, just to see half were raided by deletionists. Stuffing archives is an old trick but there are other tricks to sanitize articles too. I am not sure how they do it but it essentially resets the history and the comments. I guess "memoryhole" is a better term.
The whole site is a train wreck in progress and I have given up on it. I am not impressed that AI are trained on the finest curated politically correct sources such as Reddit and, indeed, Wikipedia. People say they don't understand why AI can hallucinate. Personally I suspect it reflects on the mental illnesses of the regulars at both of those places. I'd like to see a comparison with AI trained on 4chan plus X after Musk took over.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 18:03:03 UTC No. 16169336
>>16169195
>>16169292
Space and ancient history are the two most politically significant topics from a certain point of view.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 18:32:19 UTC No. 16169366
>>16169295
The whole site is nothing more than a propaganda battleground. We had iranian frauds going around changing every single article regarding history to try and pass off 'iran' as being older than china and india.
There have been edit wars over Tibet related articles as far back as early 2000s being directed by the chinese intelligence.
Now Ukrainian and CIA-State front groups are all over any articles related to Ukraine.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 18:45:51 UTC No. 16169397
>>16169295
Wikipedia has uploaded full archives or their site for many years
How could it be faked
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 20:57:48 UTC No. 16169619
>>16169397
There are two methods here. First is essentially the equivalent of sliding. The second would be modifying the archived records. Who is the third party archiving wikipedia?
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 22:51:23 UTC No. 16169784
>>16169397
>Wikipedia has uploaded full archives or their site for many years
That is what they tell you.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 23:01:16 UTC No. 16169795
>>16168962
read stuff you don't know about => wow, so informative!
read stuff you are an expert in => an idiot wrote this
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 23:05:50 UTC No. 16169803
>>16169795
This.
Take for example, any articles on 'Anti-Semitism', or 'Rothschild Dynasty, Section: Anti-Semetic Trope'.
You can read any article about the War in Ukraine. Assuming you haven't been living under a rock for the last three to five years, you would understand that it's incredibly easy to falsify the true picture.
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 04:06:08 UTC No. 16170197
>>16169449
I think Sanger is just criticizing the fact that there's a fair few biased editors. But I don't think that means he's criticizing the content of the entire website. Like if I look up a page about the element Zirconium there's no political statements or really anything that can be taken as biased. I don't think Sanger was complaining about that stuff
What I do think Sanger was complaining about was instances like when Elon Musk was publishing the "Twitter Files" about FBI agents working at twitter and soforth. The information was culturally relevant, especially for conservatives, and involved notable people and one of the main biased political wikipedia editors tried to delete the page less than 30 minutes after it was created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip
And then after it wasn't deleted the article itself was incredibly biased and the Talk page was fully of totally biased people, same old people you see on basically every contentious political page
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 04:09:58 UTC No. 16170200
>>16169795
>read stuff you don't know about => wow, so informative!
well, not really. That's why I'm asking about it
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 16:59:20 UTC No. 16170975
>>16170197
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
I remember back when the 4chan article was on that list.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 04:50:11 UTC No. 16171832
>>16170975
I was a small part of that edit war. They took down moot's personal page so many times, it wasn't until he was featured in the Washington Post that they stopped trying to get rid of it. They still have him listed under a fake name.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 13:12:45 UTC No. 16172236
>>16169059
kek
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 18:17:35 UTC No. 16172608
>>16168962
Wikipedia says race is a social construct, which doesn't make any sense.
I've seen citations for sources that contradicted what was being stated on Wikipedia, but it was easy to correct myself.
The main reason Wikipedia sucks is because it doesn't explain things in a good amount of detail for many subjects like math. You cannot always keep clicking on what you don't know until you build up the pre-requisite knowledge to understand the Wikipedia page you want to. That would be incredible if it could do that. I bet it can be done.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 18:20:39 UTC No. 16172611
>>16168962
Fine for anything that is (not even remotely) political. Avoid for anything else. For math it's excellent. I don't know about physics but I would assume pretty good.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 18:28:39 UTC No. 16172623
>>16172611
>For math it's excellent.
When it comes to saying things that are true it is, but the communication is terrible, like you cannot click on a mathematical symbol if you don't know what it means and have it teach you. You have to find a course on math to take, and eventually get to the place where you can learn what the symbol means. And before GPT-4, some of the symbols were impossible to search for.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 18:59:41 UTC No. 16172662
>>16172608
>The main reason Wikipedia sucks is because it doesn't explain things in a good amount of detail for many subjects like math
for now.... it's an ever-expanding and improving process.
The more I use and enhance it (I'm a geologist, so I maintain several geology sections), the more I like it. I'm even a donor.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 00:14:08 UTC No. 16173059
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 01:34:22 UTC No. 16173145
>>16168962
No. Oh god, no. Hell, no.
-t. currently an Extended Confirmed user (there's only like 50,000 or so, a very small group in the grand scheme of things).
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 11:22:59 UTC No. 16173696
>>16173059
hehe, little by little, people build nice things!
:)
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 20:21:24 UTC No. 16174438
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 21:06:23 UTC No. 16174510
>>16172608
Rome wasn't built in one day.
Name one website that achieves what wikipedia is trying to achieve but better ? there is none. I suspect people who complain about it all the time are people who get all their information from twitter posts and never bother to check anything. Wikipedia is a convenient summary that can lead you to other places and give you a quick overview of the subject you're looking into
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 21:42:08 UTC No. 16174587
>>16174510
>what wikipedia is trying to achieve
Ah yes, the one true Scotsman.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 21:59:53 UTC No. 16174611
>>16174587
coward, you're quick to criticize other people's work yet even quicker to avoid confrontation
How about you respond without trying to preemptively accusing me of commiting fallacies
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 22:13:24 UTC No. 16174619
>>16174611
NTA but the examples posted in this thread alone completely devastate any case for using wikipedia for *anything*, let alone science. Even consulting ones own psychadelic visions would be more accurate.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 22:21:00 UTC No. 16174626
>>16174619
let's take the first one then, about the "out of Africa" theory. I'm not particularly familiar with it, but what are the verifiably wrong statements in it and what other encyclopedia handles the subject better ?
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 22:24:13 UTC No. 16174628
>>16168962
Why has the number of Wikipedia articles in English been stuck at ~6mil since 2010?
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 06:55:42 UTC No. 16175141
>>16174438
Nice, you realize that what he created is editable, yes?
Thank you Steven! We're all in this together!
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 06:56:42 UTC No. 16175144
>>16174510
>Wikipedia is a convenient summary that can lead you to other places and give you a quick overview of the subject you're looking into
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 18:39:23 UTC No. 16175845
>>16168962
Only retards like Jewehr from this website dispute the Out of Africa. None of them even try to debunk the genetic and archaeological evidence.
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 02:43:34 UTC No. 16176537
>>16175845
>archaeological
"Paleoanthropology" is the term you're looking for. Archaeology is the study of human culture and civilization. Everything else you posted is wrong too
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 03:22:34 UTC No. 16176568
>>16176537
>"the study of human history andprehistorythrough theexcavationof sites and the analysis ofartifactsand other physical remains" [Google]
Archaeology was exactly the term I was looking for, Jewehr. Bomblos Cave, as well as many other african sites, is older than anything from the Aurignacian in Europe. There is no need to seek self-humiliation by summoning Paleoanthropology, Primatology, Evolutionary Anthropology, or its minor areas.
>Everything else you posted is wrong too
Elaborate.
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 11:35:00 UTC No. 16176936
>>16175141
You try edit anything of that. It will be reverted in milliseconds. Many of these guys use bots to protect their writings.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 01:19:10 UTC No. 16177736
>>16176568
>bonobos cave
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 01:24:37 UTC No. 16177747
>>16175845
my issue isn't out of africa it's the timeline
to be blatantly honest, it's far too conservative
humans have been around much longer than we think
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 08:24:13 UTC No. 16178080
>>16168962
Yes, I generally don't trust wikipedia but the mathematics and science articles are by in large accurate.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 13:34:15 UTC No. 16178374
>>16168962
>Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource?
not for politics and history.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 13:40:49 UTC No. 16178378
>>16174510
Name an encyclopedia written, edited, and censored by state actors. Your claim is retarded.
Cult of Passion at Thu, 16 May 2024 14:42:50 UTC No. 16178441
>>16178378
If you have ever pledged the allegiance to the flag...you are a self admitted agent of the State.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a "patriot", Mr. Anonymous?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 07:02:03 UTC No. 16179478
>>16178374
>science
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 07:20:56 UTC No. 16179496
>>16168962
Why did you fuck with the layout and turn every device into a mobile device?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 22:44:10 UTC No. 16180641
>>16169172
every section is a political section
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 23:07:02 UTC No. 16180658
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 23:26:29 UTC No. 16180677
>>16168962
I guess so. So many wiki articles are so incomprehensible, only the people who wrote them could truly understand them.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 22:34:22 UTC No. 16182079
wikipedia is as legit as cnn, npr, the washington post and the new york times, its all the same bucket of goyslop
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 18:49:32 UTC No. 16183106
>>16170197
>same old people you see on basically every contentious political page
those same people also hover over the science pages making sure no wrongthink gets posted
Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 01:24:31 UTC No. 16183677
>>16168962
for math and science sure, for political and historical events that are modern there could be certain biases.
Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 09:29:06 UTC No. 16184207
>>16182079
found the bus stop masturbator
Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 13:58:27 UTC No. 16184519
>>16168962
For general shit maybe, for specific information not at all or rather its a hit or miss you might encounter some really well written article and then get into total shit second later.
Like if you want to be an expert in something, forget it.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 00:41:45 UTC No. 16185374
>>16184519
referencing wikipedia is the hallmark of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about
Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 09:08:34 UTC No. 16185878
It's not so good math, jerks off logicians and set theorists too hard
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 00:32:47 UTC No. 16187067
>>16185875
yep, thats a propaganda outlet
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 01:31:19 UTC No. 16187146
>>16168962
The Doppler effect article is heavily censored and doesn't include any discussion of what happens if the source is traveling at an angle to the receiver or vice versa. Hint: what's the Doppler shift of a source passing a receiver at 90 degrees (instead of 0 or 180)? The answer may surprise you.
Also, Wikipedia's article on special relativity claims that it's been "experimentally verified".
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 01:35:18 UTC No. 16187152
>>16185875
lol. Wikipedia is just another cult trying to distort reality.
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 05:28:43 UTC No. 16187371
>>16169186
Could include these since it's relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:
Anonymous at Wed, 22 May 2024 20:37:19 UTC No. 16188482
>>16187146
gee, i wonder who could've been behind all that pilpul
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 07:55:25 UTC No. 16189147
They reverted my edit to the Corinth canal article about Lee Iacoca sourcing the leather for LeBaron interiors from that region
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 17:00:53 UTC No. 16189738
>>16169449
He says the whole mainstream media is completely fake and gay
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/17935
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:01:07 UTC No. 16190394
Wikipedia doesn't even have a page about Dr. Twum, thats how shit and unscientific the site is.
All they've got is a page about her older sister, who is a politician
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifty
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 11:42:19 UTC No. 16190961
>>16168962
Wikipedia is a site made by midwits for midwits
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 22:10:58 UTC No. 16191712
>>16190394
>She had her BSc. in Biology from the University of Cape Coast in 1997.[8] She further had her MBA in Strategic Management in 2018.[9] She also had her BSc from the University of Ghana.[10]
>Ampofo was a Science tutor at Akosombo International School before becoming a Member of Parliament.[11] She was also the Head of Science Department and Head of Examinations at the Volta River Authority.
Seems like she was a scientist before she became a MP
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 07:30:55 UTC No. 16192261
>>16191712
>twum has an older sister who is an even stronger scientist
>but the older, more impressive twum remains shrouded in mystery deep in the jungles of ghana
kino
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 08:35:15 UTC No. 16192356
>>16168962
>Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource?
yes
>giant wall of text for the rest of the post
fuck off
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 16:21:56 UTC No. 16192752
>>16185875
If you actually go to the archive of that page, the pictures won't even show because the jpg file has been completely removed from the website database
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 17:24:13 UTC No. 16192830
>>16168962
they've started to censor the "early life"-section for certain articles. (they aren't available in eglish but when you change language to hebrew then you can read it all)
it is very demoralizing
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 22:20:02 UTC No. 16193235
>>16192830
the fact that it took them this long to stop making wikipedia into jew identification tool just shows how incredibly stupid the jews running wikipedia are
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 07:26:33 UTC No. 16193695
>>16193235
you can still use the page edit history to ID jews on the pages that have been censored
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 10:33:23 UTC No. 16193927
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 12:08:58 UTC No. 16194043
You must check those links in wiki, if they really say what they say.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 05:10:21 UTC No. 16195299
>>16168962
>which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the article
No that just means that all conflicting points of view have been deleted by the wikipedia faggots
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 21:05:37 UTC No. 16196489
>>16168962
Why is wikipedia so incredibly fake and gay?
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 07:31:46 UTC No. 16197313
>>16196489
because its a propaganda outlet thinly disguised as an online encyclopedia
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 22:29:20 UTC No. 16198313
>>16192752
Creepy
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 06:42:28 UTC No. 16198778
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 16:57:01 UTC No. 16199289
>>16168962
>>16168996
Nope.
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 16:59:46 UTC No. 16199291
>>16185875
>>16187152
It really disgusting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wx
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:07:18 UTC No. 16200108
wikipedia is a bucket of vomit, its pure propaganda
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 05:21:42 UTC No. 16200261
>>16200108
Its a part of the jews' white genocide program
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:27:44 UTC No. 16200999
>>16199291
>YT ragebait
lol lmao even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuk
Nowhere does it say he was a samurai.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:13:30 UTC No. 16201684
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 02:58:13 UTC No. 16201876
>>16168962
>Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource?
Yes, I learned that there are 53 genders for humans.
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:01:09 UTC No. 16202788
>>16200999
no yet, but they'll eventually edit it to whatever lie they feel they can get away with
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 04:09:16 UTC No. 16203561
>>16201876
You must've seen that a while ago, they currently list 92
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 04:38:14 UTC No. 16203604
>>16200999
>April 2024, a new feature film spec script titled Black Samurai written by Blitz Bazawule was acquired by Warner Bros. for Bazawule to direct.
Gonna cast Arab or Indian
>On 15 May 2024, Ubisoft announced that a fictionalized Yasuke would be a primary character in the upcoming video game Assassin's Creed Shadows
>woman dev and few troon
Wish prefer Taka
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 05:27:25 UTC No. 16203659
>>16168962
It's extremely biassed towards the left, as they've conquered the entire site. It's okay, I think. But concerning topics such as transsexuality, homosexuality, race, IQ, etc., the sources are utter jokes, like statements taken from various diversity departments as scientific authorities. Seriously, look at the sources! It's either the same three, four, or five people or statements from diversity committees, committees of scientific ethics, and so forth.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:17:38 UTC No. 16205242
>>16203659
what good is an encyclopedia that can't be trusted and has to be double checked? why not just skip the encyclopedia and go straight to the independent research?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:07:38 UTC No. 16206736
>>16205242
>what good is an encyclopedia that can't be trusted and has to be double checked?
Its useful in propagandizing the low IQs
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 06:35:58 UTC No. 16207364
>>16206736
Propaganda in general doesn't get aimed at high IQ people. They're too difficult to fool and manipulate, so its waste of effort to target them. In a democracy you only need to target the dumbest 50.0001% anyway, so why bother with the expense and effort of propagandizing high IQs
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:07:35 UTC No. 16207402
>>16168962
Wikipedians have a rule where you must get your sources from secondary information (people interpreting and discussing primary information). This works fine for things like science and math because you do want professionals with PhDs to interpret information properly because if you just have primary sources, the information will be scuffed by individuals who don't know what the fuck they are talking about. It works differently however, for more subjective things like politics and sociology, because the secondary sources will almost always have a political agenda they want to push with the data especially since the secondary sources are usually mass media for things like politics. Use wikipedia for small amounts of information on things like physics and math, but don't use it for divisive things like feminism or whatever.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:47:26 UTC No. 16208192
>>16207402
>This works fine for things like science and math because you do want professionals with PhDs to interpret information properly
they don't do that
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 02:53:52 UTC No. 16209007
>>16198778
lol
good pic
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 18:19:31 UTC No. 16210136
>>16207402
Easy enough to circumvent that by producing your own secondary information which validates whatever narrative you want to shill
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 04:19:46 UTC No. 16211050
>>16200999
The Yasuke meme sure has opened a lot of eyes.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 20:23:21 UTC No. 16212310
>>16198313
crypto bot too
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:46:45 UTC No. 16213330
>>16168962
>Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource?
no its pure trash
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:50:45 UTC No. 16213333
>>16168962
This guy made a good video about it
Tldr its a private company with neck deep ties to alphabet boys money
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F0yIG
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:30:51 UTC No. 16218208
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:47:03 UTC No. 16218245
>>16213333
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqw
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 17:06:18 UTC No. 16220100
>>16213333
the part about wikipedia's finances is eye opening.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 04:42:16 UTC No. 16221286
>>16220100
LOL, they have enough money to keep it going for 150 years, yet Jimbo spends all the money on lawyers he uses to harass critics
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:37:40 UTC No. 16222738
>>16221286
meanwhile the people who provide the site's content do it for free
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:25:05 UTC No. 16224085
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:20:23 UTC No. 16224148
>>16169059
>Caves of Qud
How do you get into that game? It’s just the mixture of randomness and hidden structure that really annoys me usually.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:24:04 UTC No. 16224152
>>16222738
plenty of them are being paid (just not by Jimbo)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 23:31:02 UTC No. 16225771
>>16224152
How much do you think >>16174438 picrel gets paid to censor Wikipedia?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 19:49:19 UTC No. 16227285
>>16225771
he gets paid enough that he can afford to consume several thousand excess calories on a daily basis.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:04:28 UTC No. 16227321
>>16224148
Broken build sandbox is the best way to explain it. The world doesn't need to have much detailing along standard narrative lines to have interesting player-world interactions.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:19:20 UTC No. 16227351
>>16224085
>block
Most pussie cuck go out with no opinion
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:57:27 UTC No. 16228722
>>16227285
jimmy pays him in goyslop
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:18:41 UTC No. 16229786
>>16213333
I watched that video because it was quads, good video. The numbers don't lie (but wikipedia does)
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:41:47 UTC No. 16231508
>>16213333
Wikipedia now provides its own characterizations and summary dismissals.
Gas All Communists at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:30:37 UTC No. 16232933
>>16232911
Because it's not and has never been about the environment. It's about frightening people into submission. The story of climate change was effective enough that it's served this purpose.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 05:19:04 UTC No. 16234002
>>16232911
They ruin everything they touch