Image not available

800x731

Wikipedia-logo-v2....png

🧵 Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 16474327

They used to demand wikipedia tier language to pass a grade in my college and now everyone is saying this is pozzed? Maybe just how your institutions are pozzed and your education system has failed
anyway you should be able to sift useful information from wikipedia if you are truly smart.
AI will help us dig through useless text for valuable information

Anonymous No. 16474416

Wikipedia has been run by psychopaths for at least a decade. Look into Wikipediocracy.

Anonymous No. 16474503

I'm really autistic and I always notice when langauge that shouldnt be in a wikipage is there (it's always put in by retarded neon hair cultists) and I get judicial punishment if I try to correct it

Anonymous No. 16474505

>>16474503
for those wondering it's when they frontload a page with toxic labels and write tons of abosolutes into the page like "racist pseudoscientist" etc you dont fucking know that why would you write it in

Anonymous No. 16474934

>>16474505

I noticed this on Trump's introductory paragraph. They mention he's the first president to be a felon etc etc... well did you mention on Bill Clinton's introductory paragraph he was the first president to get his cock sucked in the Oval office? It's so blatantly biased

Anonymous No. 16475195

>>16474505
>>16474934
If the problem were limited to bias, political or otherwise, that would be normal and perhaps not even unhealthy, since biased language and material inaccuracies can just as easily be used as a countersignal to discredit not just the biased parts of an article but, by association, the entire article. While I have no interest in reading the Trump page, presumably it states as fact one or more of the easily falsifiable media hoaxes assigned to him; once you read a single hoax you know to be false, stated as fact, it causes you to fairly or unfairly discount every other negative assertion about him, even those which might be true.

Anonymous No. 16475226

It's a propaganda site for leftist who control the site. It's not a free for all editing. Since admins are communist left wings and ban those that don't confirm to communist party

Anonymous No. 16475235

>>16475226
>a free for all editing
would be two bots instantaneous reverting each other. You would then have Schrödinger's articles where you could never know if Trump were the second coming Hitler or Washington until you opened the box, so to speak. Most people fundamentally prefer stability, whether they agree or disagree with it.

Anonymous No. 16475237

>>16474416
>for at least a decade
Make that for at least 20 years.