you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

Practicing due diligence to make sure Wikipedia's sources are legit isn't difficult. You can check the sources listed on every single Wikipedia entry yourself for bias. It's not like they hide their sources. That alone is what makes it so valuable. Anyone trying to push a narrative can easily see it sourced as bullshit.

Kind of like how the article you linked is a worthless, factless, opinion piece about Wikipedia becoming "woke" due to the feelings of Larry Sanger being hurt. Nothing that article says is based on anything factual, and the only studies mentioned are wildly taken out of context.

Wikipedia let's me do that analysis for myself, so I don't get tricked into thinking an obvious piece of propaganda is real.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's always been a jumping-off point, not a primary source. It's still fantastic that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Sure, but many will cite a news organization's opinion page as fact. Is this a good reason for any administration to target opinion pages?

    The administration is supposed to represent the Constitution, not attack it.

    Remember your constitution; particularly the 1st amendment.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)