107
submitted 2 years ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Wikipedia is a source unless you're writing an academic paper or for Wikipedia. It's far more accurate than most news sites and for the most part immune to political bias, as the only way it can be biased is to exclude things but if you do then someone else will just add them in

I just showed that the source given went directly against what was being said in the comment

[-] zephyreks@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago

Except, it's really not. Your quote from the Wikipedia article is unsubstantiated conjecture with no source that supports the claim.

There's a reason Wikipedia isn't acceptable for academic papers: it's factually incorrect often enough to be a problem. It's specifically a problem for non-Western content because the vast majority of Wikipedia contributors speak English as their dominant (and often only) language and thus can only ever use English secondary or tertiary sources.

[-] autismdragon@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

for the most part immune to political bias

michael-laugh

There's a guy who has like 1/3 of the edits on Wikipedia who is an open anti-communist lol.

[-] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Nice necromancy you been practicing?

[-] autismdragon@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Went to your profile, saw something I disagree with, posted because autism. shrug

this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
107 points (94.2% liked)

World News

33443 readers
469 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS