What's your opinion on Wikipedia?
It has its flaws but I do find it a noble cause, despite how creepy Jimmy Wales is.
What's your opinion on Wikipedia?
Anthony Sanchez
Brayden Morris
If the subject has ANY political value, it is given a far left slant.
The use the neutral subjects to give the political propaganda credibility. Their bullshit about Man Made Global Warming was an epic example of how wikipedia lies.
Angel Ramirez
It's socialist bullshit. Information shouldn't be free.
Gabriel Thompson
>If the subject has ANY political value, it is given a far left slant.
this isn't remotely true at all.
Hunter Morgan
information is the only thing that should be free
Ayden Cruz
Why is it the same picture every damn time? It's like House or that President guy from Fallout.
Does this guy not take other pictures? Is he really just a robot?
They paraded Zuckenstein around to prove he's not just a robot head but a fully functioning android. What about this guy? He took one picture now we're supposed to get familiar with it like he's our gay uncle?
Nathaniel Evans
lol
Jaxson Diaz
I felt betrayed because for some reason some cunt wrote that Black Sabbath Solitude was sung by Tony Iommi
What a load of bullshit
You can't trust anything there
Liam Reed
How the fuck do people who do intellectual work owe you a damned thing?
Mason White
doing their work
Ryan Reed
I use it to look up random shit like info on countries or whatever. Anything that can be warped by a subjective interpretation is taken with a grain of salt, but yeah I use it for random objective stuff.
Anthony Sanders
No the problem is reality, science and facts often do not back up your stupid beliefs.
Hunter Kelly
Just another example of decent white people trying to create something and getting subverted by kikes and their golems.
Adrian Gutierrez
>What's your opinion on Wikipedia?
Any article from wikicrapia is useless without well vented sources. If you pay attention to what is cited you'll learn pretty quickly how much of it is questionable. If you read the history of the articles you'll see a definite leftist slant on everything.
Use with extreme caution
Juan Diaz
but who pays for the researchers?
Grayson Peterson
It's great for non-political stuff. If you're reading politics on it, you better check the sources, as the people who have wrote the article might've read the source incorrectly.
Carter Mitchell
>It has its flaws
You've got to be fucking joking! "It has its flaws"?
Biggest propaganda pseudofact site on the internet and "it has it's flaws"!!!
Go fuck yourself.
Kevin Clark
So says the retard who unironically believes there are sixty human genders and only one race.
Eli Stewart
>vetted
Gabriel Richardson
I use it to catch up on celebrities, mainly.
Jose Morris
>If the subject has ANY political value, it is given a far left slant.
surprisingly untrue... I mean I haven't done a ton of research on the matter but I do recall recently looking up something on there (can't remember what) and anticipating it being heavily biased to the left, and it wasn't.
That being said, if there is bias, it's to the left. It would never be biased towards the right, unless you'd consider being biased towards truth/science being biased towards the right (ie. "XY means you're a male" - holy fuck look at this Nazi bias).
Cameron Martin
wales is a pseudo intellectual faggot, so basically a lib
Blake Taylor
>The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate.
en.wikipedia.org
>The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism and did so according to the Associated Press to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazism.
en.wikipedia.org
>Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white supremacist.
en.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia has a policy where media sources that are considered "credible" trump primary sources - in other words, if the virtue-signaling media wishes to characterize you differently than you do yourself, the media narrative is used. Go to the "talk" pages for these articles or other controversial issues and you'll find this.
Landon Sullivan
I was writing the executive order on the wall for a Wikipedia sponsored class. That is, I was working directly with Wikipedia staff on the page on Jan. 29 when it came out. I spent the entire semester editing the page, making it nice, using sources from left, right, and middle wing sources in order to build a legitimately great article, and then the day after the class ended, someone deleted all of my work and I found a 2 year ban on editing any articles on my account. That was pretty eye opening and I don't use Wikipedia anymore for anything unrelated to hard science like chemistry and select biology.
Carson Morgan
Eh, it has its uses, simply don't look into politics or any other potentially controversial subjects.
Nathaniel Ortiz
...
Brayden Fisher
Used to be a great resource until it got destroyed by jews sometime in the 00s
Connor Robinson
Autocorrect on my phone
Cameron Reed
I like it.
I just don't like that educators immediately condemned the website as being a bad source of information.
They didn't do the same for encyclopedia Britannica, which was basically the print and cd version of wikipedia.
Camden Bailey
What was the wikipedia page?
Kevin Mitchell
>It's socialist bullshit. Information shouldn't be free.
Wikipedia is proof that only disinformation and brainwashing is actually free:
twitter.com
Hudson Jenkins
I used to love Wikipedia. Now I don't trust it because any event can be edited and skewed to fit any narrative. People eat it up like truth because it's Wikipedia. Some articles are alright but you can't trust anything on there that has any controversial political or scientific topic.
Nathaniel Cooper
>>If the subject has ANY political value, it is given a far left slant.
>this isn't remotely true at all.
It is partially true, though. For example read page about George Soros - there is almost no criticism of what has he done, if you dont know about him it gives an impression that he is some kind of a philanthrope.
Evan Foster
en.wikipedia.org
Only place on the internet I can read about him without some libtard BAAWWWing or conservashit REEEEing the whole time