Red flags of naivete

>>38455239
Wikipedia almost always cites sources, so it's more reliable than all the rest you've listed.

>>38455239
>he thinks his opinions are right
This so most people though, and I guess people are just used to having convictions

>>38455274

A fair amount of the time, the source doesn't actually say what is in the Wikipedia article. Unless you go into the source and read it yourself, you really are just taking their word for it.

Other times, the sources themselves have been debunked yet still remain on Wikipedia.

>>38455239
What do you recommend as good sources, OP?

>>38455274
What is a source but another person that wrote something? I bet you believe the versions of history they taught you in elementary school too.

File: 2smart.png (272KB, 680x636px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 680x636px

>>38457308
>All knowledge has to be completely organic
>Current year
>Still not understanding physics purely from deep introspection alone
>tfw brainlets actually read books that are written by somebody else
>subhumans fall for the 'study' meme
>degenerates actually stupid enough to get a professor's opinion
>Went to the store to buy intelligence elixer and the cashier told me it was $2
>Tfw they tried to use the number on the till as citation
>tfw to intelligent to need 'sources'

NaivetE? Really?

>>38455239
>he believes in the existance of god without porving he exists
>he believes the theory of evolution is right, just because some old fuck said so, without actually doing research and experiments himself to prove it
>he believes the earth is flat without proving it himself
>he believes the earth is round without proving it himself
>he believes anything
lmao nice one, you sheep

>>38455274
The problem with cited source often comes down to
>mischaracterization of what the source says
>dead, uncheckable source
>bogus source
There is also the issue of power users deciding what can be included in the article, and arbitrarily permitting or dismissing sources or information for inclusion.