Why does Wikipedia get so much shit talked about it? Why don't

>>8751884
nice try, wikipedia (((shill))). you'll never get me to spend my hard-earned tax dollars on your overpriced website. let me just say one word: george soros.

>>8751906
kek

File: 1352969733291.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

>>8751906
are you a liberal who's still buttpained over the election?

>>8751884
You're conflating "educational tool" with "reliable academic source".

But you were aware of that when you posted, weren't you?

>>8751884

>doing research project for school
>teacher says wikipedia is not a valid source
>use wikipedia anyway but cite the sources at the bottom of the article
>get away with it, too

d e v i l i s h

>>8751884
I think It's generally a semi decent educational tool if you keep a little bit of skepticism

You only start running into problems in some historical articles where both sides feel strongly. Also, if your the sort of person who thinks everything is a jewish conspiracy, which is very common on 4chan, then you'll find something to rage about for sure. But really you'll be upset by everything that isn't 4chan or fake news by then.

>>8751926
>using tribalism and appeals to motive
kek

>>8751926
please take your sonichu drawings to /pol/

>>8751884
OP here. I'm sorry, guys. I meant to post this in 2009. Silly me.

>>8751884

It's great for science but any article with even a tangential link to politics is going to be wildly distorted and unreliable.

>>8752008
>You only start running into problems in some historical articles where both sides feel strongly.
Because getting a one-sided account from mainstream academic sources is so much better and more enlightening, amirite?

>>8752210
This 2bh senpai
>Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle.

>>8752217
>pizzagate is real!!!!!!!!
>russians are fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>8752217
>Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a far-right[5] American news, opinion and commentary[6][7] website

I mean I don't even like Breitbart but this is some pretty egregious bias for the "neutral pov" wiki.

>>8752229
>I don't even like Bretibart
sure thing

To Breitbart readers, everyone to the left of Hitler is a liberal.

>>8752235

So? Does the bias of Brietbart justify the bias of wiki? "Far right"? Yeah, no. "Mainstream conservative liberal", more like.

>>8752229

Why is calling something right winged biased?

>>8752238
What the fuck does that even mean? Did you just make that up?

>>8751952
More like "reliable academic source" loses shekels and tries to eliminate competition.

>>8752242
>>8752243

If you honestly think Breitbart is a far-right site then you might just be retarded.

>>8752248

You didn't answer my question.

File: kitten-in-arms-thinkstockphotos-106397271-335lc070915jpg.jpg (31KB, 335x285px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 335x285px

Wikipedia mods only allow citations from (((Reliable sources))), AKA Judaic-Freemason media/academia, anything that doesn't fit this bill gets removed, just go look at the '9/11 theories' page, one of the most jokiest articles I've read, and it's locked for new editors.

No, I don't go on /pol/, but I have (((jewish))) ancestors.

>>8752248
I think Fox News is right-wing. I think Breitbart is further right than they are. So there's that. I don't know what you "call" that.

>>8752257

The far-right refers to those outside the liberal camp altogether, the likes of nazis and monarchists. Breitbart is conservative but it's also liberal, it advocates for free elections, free speech, and capitalism, the core tenants of liberalism.

>>8752257
left/right distinctions are waste of time and exist for this reason solely.
4chan has the golden concept of judging each post on it's own merit alone, I'd suggest applying this to everything out there.

>>8752259
So only stormfront and neonazis are allowed to be called FAR-right in your view? These are subjective terms. They mean something else to almost every person you would ask to define them.

>>8752261
We should also throw out language altogether while we're at it.

>>8752263

Which is why wikipedia used to employ the concept of the neutral pov, something it has abandoned entirely in fact if not "in law". It's fine for a media outlet to be so ridiculously biased that it would call a centre-right group like breitbart "far-right", but not when an encyclopaedia does it, because that makes the encyclopaedia worthless by eliminating it's trustworthiness.

I'd say when it comes to scientific stuff wikipedia is usually pretty good, but I would stay away from almost everything else, A LOT of articles are paid for and there are confirmed admin shills, especially the articles on companies are fake.

>>8752265
desu we should, because most of it is worthless buzzing to signal ones belonging to their self imposed sect of ignorance, ex:
>I'm left, fuck right
>I'm right, fuck left

>>8752274
Except as humans it is not possible to not belong to any tribe or group or identity

>>8752297
>[citation needed]
because if someone told you this, it must be true
it's not like we're alone inside our mind for our entire lifecycle or anything

>>8752348
What are you babbling about? I can't understand you. Humans are social animals.

cause it makes assignments too easy
lets face it wikipedia is no less reliable than any other jew book and you should just be able to copy paste into assignments