My wife's medical nerd friends would confirm that when they try to educate Wikipedia with scans from text books and they don't get approved. It's not an online source, yeah it's a $300 - $600 text book educating nurses and doctors to 8 year medical degrees. You tell me which is more credible.
The claim that Wikipedia is not a reliable source comes from Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, so it's not reliable to say that Wikipedia is not reliable.
Certain pages have more rabid "protectors" than others. Wonder what subject? Anything even tangentially related to marijuana has been censored for years, only subject I see things get deleted off the talk page on when the people trying to control it don't like it.
Look at the pages for Pizzagate and Seth Rich. The wiki editors loudly proclaimed they are "debunked conspiracy theories" and locked the pages from further editing. Dirty fucking communist scum
The big thing is taking control of entries so anything other people post, even if it's objectively fixing a mistake, gets undone. And because the cybersquatter is a senior editor (somebody who sits on their computer 16 hours a day monitoring Wikipedia entries) they can do whatever they want inside their little kingdoms.
Progressives even do edit events where they get together and make random pages more politically correct, and obviously anything political gets rewritten by Correct The Record or whatever the DNC calls their internet misinformation team these days. It's not bad looking up physics or math type of articles, history is hit or miss, but anything remotely political is pure biased garbage.
I hear Wikipedia is not a reliable source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source
My wife's medical nerd friends would confirm that when they try to educate Wikipedia with scans from text books and they don't get approved. It's not an online source, yeah it's a $300 - $600 text book educating nurses and doctors to 8 year medical degrees. You tell me which is more credible.
The claim that Wikipedia is not a reliable source comes from Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, so it's not reliable to say that Wikipedia is not reliable.
Certain pages have more rabid "protectors" than others. Wonder what subject? Anything even tangentially related to marijuana has been censored for years, only subject I see things get deleted off the talk page on when the people trying to control it don't like it.
Look at the pages for Pizzagate and Seth Rich. The wiki editors loudly proclaimed they are "debunked conspiracy theories" and locked the pages from further editing. Dirty fucking communist scum
Even the Hunter Ukraine thing. ABC followed that story for 7 years only to now be "Rudy setup Hunter 3 years ago."
The big thing is taking control of entries so anything other people post, even if it's objectively fixing a mistake, gets undone. And because the cybersquatter is a senior editor (somebody who sits on their computer 16 hours a day monitoring Wikipedia entries) they can do whatever they want inside their little kingdoms.
Progressives even do edit events where they get together and make random pages more politically correct, and obviously anything political gets rewritten by Correct The Record or whatever the DNC calls their internet misinformation team these days. It's not bad looking up physics or math type of articles, history is hit or miss, but anything remotely political is pure biased garbage.