There is a very good free alternative to Wikipedia that is run by people who are very conservative. It doesnt rewrite history and demonize white people. It's called Infogalactic. I use it all the time.
Not really. Besides my issues with Vox Day, Infogal is basically a fork of Wikipedia, but less aggressively rewritten. On the plus side this means that Memory Holing happens less/slower, but also that actual corrections happen less. It also tends to be victim to ancient problems from back in.
But you'll note that while even Wikipedia ultimately caved, edited the "limited victory" language out, and admitted to Chinese defeats in Vietnam and Taiwan, Infogal hasn't. Probably because not enough people care about it.
Which gives you an idea. No matter how well intentioned or dutiful the people in question are, it's still built on bad foundations that haven't been fixed.
Now actually look at the sources they go with. The first of which references a very limited (and mostly temporary) Chinese/Qing reconquest of a Northern frontier city (that would presumably be fought over more if the war continued) while explicitly detailing how the Qing were fucked strategically and had to admit to losing the war, while the second is a horseshit CCP thesis published in a German University.
Especially when you compare it to here, the origin of the war.
Pretty simple really. Chinese propaganda OH SO BADLY wants to argue that this was at least a LIMITED Chinese victory in the "Century of Humiliation" over the evul whypeppol Empire under the argument that they fought somewhat decently (ok, sure) and that the French didn't do something like annexing vast swaths of Guangxi and Yunnan.
But the French were never trying to do that.
The French were trying to subjugate the Qing tributaries in Indochina (like Annam/Vietnam) and dominate the South China Sea. The Qing got involved in this war to try and prevent them from doing this and LOST. Badly, before using the temporary victory at Lang Son to quit the war while they were behind. That's a DEFEAT on land, no two ways about it.
But Wikipedia's "logic" is that they get to decide which sources are "scholarly" and "reputable", and they largely decide by "muh consensus." Meaning that when the CCP orders its gremlins to spam out article after article after article pledging how this was a glorious Chinese victory (that somehow saw them wiped from Indochinese politics for most of a century and crippled in the South China Sea), the credulous hacks in Wiki go with that.
And this happens ALL OVER the place if you're careful to look. If you want a laugh look at the Contra pages and ones about the Cuban revolution.
It's a decentish place to START, and I have indeed learned many wondrous and odd things from trawling around it in the old days. But don't trust anything it says without evidence.
10 years ago I would have considered it. Now? After all the shady shit they've done by censoring facts, writing propaganda and banning long-time contributors for "wrongthink"? Hell no?
Not only will I never donate to Wikipedia, I use scripts and add-ons to block their GIANT, obtrusive begging ads so I still purposefully consume their "content" and use up their bandwidth while power-ignoring their little outstretched hands.
Wikipedia is filled with propaganda and pornography. Only for non-controversial things is it somewhat reliable. If you try to correct an article the libtard mods will change it back. That is if the article isn't locked for editing already.
SCREW Wikipedia. That is some incredible greed, to accept all that dirty DNC/Chinese/Soros money and then feign poverty to bilk donations from the citizens they so gleefully deceive. It's as silly as if the NY Times or NBA were asking for donations.
I gave them like $3 or $5 back in like 2005 and I just saw I had an email from them in an old AOL email address I never use. They were asking for money. yeah fucking right. Get bent wikipedo's Your site is shit. Ohh you NEED my money. Why not just put a fucking google banner on your site like everyone else if you are so broke.
Wont get a dime from me.
There is a very good free alternative to Wikipedia that is run by people who are very conservative. It doesnt rewrite history and demonize white people. It's called Infogalactic. I use it all the time.
Wow thanks for that! Didn't know there is a better alternative to Wusspedia!
And the 2nd item on this list is hilarious, yet true!
Not really. Besides my issues with Vox Day, Infogal is basically a fork of Wikipedia, but less aggressively rewritten. On the plus side this means that Memory Holing happens less/slower, but also that actual corrections happen less. It also tends to be victim to ancient problems from back in.
An example is here.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Sino-French_War
Why this is nonsense can be found here:
https://thedonald.win/p/HrAlF5PN/x/c/17teSTBSga
But you'll note that while even Wikipedia ultimately caved, edited the "limited victory" language out, and admitted to Chinese defeats in Vietnam and Taiwan, Infogal hasn't. Probably because not enough people care about it.
Which gives you an idea. No matter how well intentioned or dutiful the people in question are, it's still built on bad foundations that haven't been fixed.
Infogalactic? Planetary? Planetary? Infogalactic?
They should never have gone full commie. Never go full commie.
It’s unfortunate,
Wikipedia is actually a good source for pretty much everything except current events.
Especially in the realm of history. They are quite expansive when it comes to things like history (especially pre-modern history).
I especially like their “Early Life” section on influential people. You’d be surprised what coincidences and patterns pop up.
based early life poster
Yeah those are awesome and filled with cool little stories I didn’t know about that really shows the humanity of these figures we read about.
That's misleading. Honestly it's really subjective to "Geller-Mann Amnesia" on a lot of cases.
A key example? Well, take a look at this horseshit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-French_War
"Strategic Victory for Qing Forces on Land."
Now actually look at the sources they go with. The first of which references a very limited (and mostly temporary) Chinese/Qing reconquest of a Northern frontier city (that would presumably be fought over more if the war continued) while explicitly detailing how the Qing were fucked strategically and had to admit to losing the war, while the second is a horseshit CCP thesis published in a German University.
Especially when you compare it to here, the origin of the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonkin_campaign
Now why is this?
Pretty simple really. Chinese propaganda OH SO BADLY wants to argue that this was at least a LIMITED Chinese victory in the "Century of Humiliation" over the evul whypeppol Empire under the argument that they fought somewhat decently (ok, sure) and that the French didn't do something like annexing vast swaths of Guangxi and Yunnan.
But the French were never trying to do that.
The French were trying to subjugate the Qing tributaries in Indochina (like Annam/Vietnam) and dominate the South China Sea. The Qing got involved in this war to try and prevent them from doing this and LOST. Badly, before using the temporary victory at Lang Son to quit the war while they were behind. That's a DEFEAT on land, no two ways about it.
But Wikipedia's "logic" is that they get to decide which sources are "scholarly" and "reputable", and they largely decide by "muh consensus." Meaning that when the CCP orders its gremlins to spam out article after article after article pledging how this was a glorious Chinese victory (that somehow saw them wiped from Indochinese politics for most of a century and crippled in the South China Sea), the credulous hacks in Wiki go with that.
And this happens ALL OVER the place if you're careful to look. If you want a laugh look at the Contra pages and ones about the Cuban revolution.
It's a decentish place to START, and I have indeed learned many wondrous and odd things from trawling around it in the old days. But don't trust anything it says without evidence.
I wish I could argue, but I can’t.
Wikipedia is most certainly a good place to start. But yeah it’s filled with propaganda.
They can beg Sauron for more endowment money...
10 years ago I would have considered it. Now? After all the shady shit they've done by censoring facts, writing propaganda and banning long-time contributors for "wrongthink"? Hell no?
That would be a negative.
Sorry Ghost Rider, the pattern is full,
......and the line to get in Ye Olde Iron Hardware shop is very packed with USA Patriots.
Don't the Bankers sponsor Wikkki through CCCommie Chyna Cutouts anyway?
Yeah, I remember trying to clarify something about Jeffrey Dahmer and got told I was 'vandalisming'
Cant even find one word about HUnter Bidens scandals. On wikipedia he looks like a good guy
What the hell is wikipedia?
They asked me for $16.
They would have to provide something of value in exchange what they are asking for. Get a job you bum.
They're getting nothin'!
I rarely try to look at Wikipedia. Leftist trash!
I'll donate to myself.
Look at all of the lies they put for The_Donald and conveniently locked it. They're a bunch of salty nerd virgins. Only simps send them money,
Lmao at them begging after alienating most of their users lmao
Jokes on them, I can't read Canadian.
infogalactic seems to be a better alternative.
Not only will I never donate to Wikipedia, I use scripts and add-ons to block their GIANT, obtrusive begging ads so I still purposefully consume their "content" and use up their bandwidth while power-ignoring their little outstretched hands.
Fuck Wikipedia.
never have. never will
“Well this is awkward”. Lmao fuck Wikipedia.
Hahahahaha, why don't you ask why 98% of people don't think your service is worth paying for?
Bout tree fitty
I gave them $10 over a decade ago so I'm set for life.
They have a high socialist/communist bias. Its frankly disgusting.
I gave them money like 5 years ago...never again
I use element blocking in UBlock origin so I don't see that garbage.
Better yet, anybody who's been slandered by Wikipedia should sue for money!!
I ask Wikipedia, humbly: suck my dick.
Wikipedia is filled with propaganda and pornography. Only for non-controversial things is it somewhat reliable. If you try to correct an article the libtard mods will change it back. That is if the article isn't locked for editing already.
Stop censoring conservatives and we might consider not ruining your lives and company in court. MAYBE.
Never did in the first place
98% don't donate? Those are rookie numbers.
I want to see 99% ASAP!
I'm uninformed here, why should Wikipedia be avoided?
LOL hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
SCREW Wikipedia. That is some incredible greed, to accept all that dirty DNC/Chinese/Soros money and then feign poverty to bilk donations from the citizens they so gleefully deceive. It's as silly as if the NY Times or NBA were asking for donations.
When I was young, poor and naive, I wanted to donate hundreds to them. Now older, richer and wiser I won't give them a dime!
Wait, what’re they doing? It seems like they’re just shitty at controlling the narrative or keeping truth listed correctly as such.. what they do?
Literally never
Is it possible to cost them by constantly running their articles?
I gave them like $3 or $5 back in like 2005 and I just saw I had an email from them in an old AOL email address I never use. They were asking for money. yeah fucking right. Get bent wikipedo's Your site is shit. Ohh you NEED my money. Why not just put a fucking google banner on your site like everyone else if you are so broke.