Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Wikipedia not based on facts.

CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,218
Wikipedia just showed they are not based on fact but a consensus of opinion. They blacklisted the Epoch Times as a source due to their coverage on China and Russian Collusion. This is despite most of the facts the Epoch Times presented on Russian Collusion being correct that was then supported by the Mueller Report and Horowitz IG Report. Out of all the media outlets reporting on the issue, they stood out as being the most correct. 
KooturCaffynated

Comments

  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,428
    Yeah well duh.

    Wikipedia is unreliable enough when its NOT about political issues.

    KooturCaffynated
    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
  • BarrikorBarrikor Member UncommonPosts: 373
    edited December 2019
    Cleffy said:
    Out of all the media outlets reporting on the issue, they stood out as being the most correct. 
    Saying the truth is the quickest way to make enemies.

    If they didn't report on Hong Kong, they wouldn't have been targeted there for being "biased". Same thing with Trump. (since we're on the subject) The real reason Trump's being impeached right now is that he was uncovering the politicians' money schemes, if he just spent his time starting 2 or 3 wars like a normal president he wouldn't have this problem.

    On Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Stack Overflow, etc, anyone with a non-standard opinion gets attacked by the hate-mob; the best strategy right now is to lay-low and wait until the hate-mob is focused on something else. I.e: Just wait a while and use Epoch Times as a source in 6 months from now, no one on Wikipedia will notice.

    But hey, in the meantime, at least Wiki's got quality articles on things that matter, i.e:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
    KooturOG_Zorvan
  • johndavid14johndavid14 Newbie CommonPosts: 1

    Roku Activation Link

     Activating Roku Device is simple and easier. You need an activation code for every Roku player to activate it.

     Steps for Roku Activation link

    • Sign-in into your Roku account or create it.
    • Now, you'll get a link code at the Player section.
    • Go to Roku.com/link URL via browser and Enter the code.
    • Now, the Roku device is activated.
  • immoralthangimmoralthang Member UncommonPosts: 267
    I look at Wikipedia as a gateway of sorts to a topic that I am interested in but am admittedly ignorant. It serves a purpose but it's always been unreliable in terms of hard facts. 
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,976
    There are people who use Wikipedia as a source for current political news?  Even many supposedly respectable media sources seem to have given up on caring if a story is true, so long as it fits their preconceived biases as to what they'd like to happen and they have some anonymous source who claims that it's true.

    What Wikipedia is good for is looking up facts that are not in dispute and that no one has a motivation to lie about.  I'd expect a good amount of information on a modern politician to be at minimum biased, but things like his date of birth, which state or district he represents, and the results of elections he has run in are probably going to be correct.
  • jasonmathewjasonmathew Newbie CommonPosts: 1

    How To Activate Roku?

    It’s not a tough task to activate Roku. Connect the necessary hardware, activate the Network. The software update is automatic. To link your device to the Roku account, use the page   Roku.com/link. Go to the store to activate your favorite channels.

  • wesleywalkerwesleywalker Newbie CommonPosts: 1
    Not based on facts. So you need to make deeper research when you are going to write your papers. Visit these services ewriters.pro to get some help.
  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,428
    Yeesh. Three advertisement postings in a nine posting thread ? Yuck.
    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
  • Malachi22Malachi22 Newbie CommonPosts: 1
    Wikipedia is good for getting a basic understanding of a subject, but it's always better to research at a library. Most have resources to search Journals and newspapers too
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,218
    A fact is proven through experimentation and evidence. A consensus of opinion are the majority holding a particular opinion regardless of experimentation and evidence. For instance during Thanksgiving Trump spent it with troops. If you went based on the consensus of opinion he spent it golfing at Mar-A-Lago.
    GorweOG_ZorvanCaffynated
  • geeksquad631geeksquad631 Newbie CommonPosts: 2
    Yes, you are right Wikipedia not based on facts but Wikipedia good for knowledge.

    https://getgeek.info/how-to-contact-best-buy-geek-squad/

     
    Caffynated
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,164
    It's a starting point for information on a subject.

    And it's not appropriate to some inquiries. If I am prescribed a medication and need to know about drug interactions, I'm not going to check wikipedia.

    If it matters, you verify any sources cited and do deeper research. 


    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • geeksquad631geeksquad631 Newbie CommonPosts: 2

    Nice information provided by you, it really helped me to understand this topic.
    SMF File Extension
  • ErsthanscErsthansc Newbie CommonPosts: 8
    edited March 30
    the fact that anyone can visit the site and change the text negates the high level of trust in Wikipedia. One day, I needed help in physics on relativity. Using the Canadian service https://ca.edubirdie.com/physics-help, selecting literature and sources, I realized that Wikipedia article on the theory of relativity is a lot of mistakes. So be very careful when using this site.
    Post edited by Ersthansc on
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,649
    Wikipedia is often a reliable source but not it's not 100% accurate.How they operate their business is also going to be hit n miss.

    Do i think those governments are doing cover ups,100% most certainly,no more than my distaste for my Canadian government.

    $$$$<<<that runs the world,people not working don't make governments money.People on social assistance don't make the government money.No money no weapons of war for Putin and the rest.

    If a government admits a pandemic they then are sort of required to aid it's people,BILLIONS,trillions of dollars every day are at play then.

    In the end we are going to pay severely for this,just like how they implemented the whole taxes idea because of the war.Governments are going to use this pandemic as a means to push various agenda,example Trump and his push against foreign immigrants.Right this minute Trump is trying to militarize our Canada US border.It is already spreading like WILDFIRE,so how is militarizing the border going to stop this now?

    Bottom line,governments don't get into power because they have common sense,they get into power through corruption,money,powerful allies like unions ,lobbyists etc etc.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • ArmanoSArmanoS Newbie CommonPosts: 1
    Yes, this is how bro society works, it doesn’t really honor what it really is, but what opinion leaders or ruling leaders, groups think are right. As for education, I often use the helpers sites to resist the influence of social science.
  • FlharfhFlharfh Member UncommonPosts: 6
    Wikipedia is fine for a basic summary of an uncontroversial topic. But for any contemporary social, religious, or political issue, it's disastrously bad. Not only can anyone edit the articles, the more senior editors have their own biases and ideological agendas. 
  • brianwil2727brianwil2727 Newbie CommonPosts: 1
    Quizzical said:
    There are people who use Wikipedia as a source for current political news?  Even many supposedly respectable media sources seem to have given up on caring if a story is true, so long as it fits their preconceived biases as to what they'd like to happen and they have some anonymous source who claims that it's true.

    What Wikipedia is good for is looking up facts that are not in dispute and that no one has a motivation to lie about.  I'd expect a good amount of information on a modern politician to be at bitcoin futures liquidity report minimum biased, but things like his date of birth, which state or district he represents, and the results of elections he has run in are probably going to be correct. 
    thanks this was 
  • nicolleemeyernicolleemeyer Newbie CommonPosts: 2
    Yeah, that's true. Sometimes you can edit any wiki article you want 
Sign In or Register to comment.