You can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.
. . . ah. . . it's an alright starting point for a survey of topics. If you now how it is organized.You shouldn't look at Wikipedia as a source period... because it can be edited by random people. It has nothing to do with being politically biased.
As a source for biographical information it's fairly reliable. Any information they present can be double checked elsewhere. For dates of births (and deaths) of notable people, it's fine. For political issues, I use other sources.You shouldn't look at Wikipedia as a source period... because it can be edited by random people. It has nothing to do with being politically biased.
Yet many on this forum use it for discussions related to political issues. I think that's what the co-founder is warning about. I already knew it was unreliable for that.High School and College kids are explicitly told not to use Wiki as a source. . .
Most educated folks already know this.
As a source for biographical information it's fairly reliable. Any information they present can be double checked elsewhere. For dates of births (and deaths) of notable people, it's fine. For political issues, I use other sources.
More conservative victimhood tripeYou can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.
On some topics it can serve as a stand-alone basic source, but as you suggest, check it's sources and then use those to cite for the persons whom are testy about Wiki.. . . ah. . . it's an alright starting point for a survey of topics. If you now how it is organized.
I always, ALWAYS look at the sources used, and than go to those sources if I can, to read them.
Then I do an independent search outside of the wiki.
It also helps to use DuckDuckGo as a search engine instead of Google. I've used both on the same political issue for several tests. Google will filter out conservative views or often place them at the bottom of a long list.On some topics it can serve as a stand-alone basic source, but as you suggest, check it's sources and then use those to cite for the persons whom are testy about Wiki.
If you want basic information, say regards the nature and properties of the element nitrogen, Wiki is OK. But if going for topics tinged with political overlays and applications, like anthropogenic climate change(ACC) or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), than expect the left leaning bias and partial truths to run all through what you will find.
History and historical events tend to be more objective, especially the further back one goes, but still, check the sources used by Wiki.
Recent events, current political personalities, recent legislation and political activities will all need close examination and hesitancy to accept at literal value. Similar with many recent "news" stories. These all are where bias, mostly Left leaning creep in.
Bitch is that it's not just Wiki where this is a problem/challenge. Through out most MSM sources/sites and many first to second page lists one gets with websearching one will find many sites~sources that are far from objective, and the subjective most often leans Left.
Wikipedia is maintained by people both knowledgeable about a topic and interested enough to donate their time. Aren't there any conservatives that fit that description?You can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.
Plenty...but we don't waste our time contributing to an information site that allows others to edit or delete what we write on political issues. I have edited a few scientific entries in years past.Wikipedia is maintained by people both knowledgeable about a topic and interested enough to donate their time. Aren't there any conservatives that fit that description?
Got it. It is way easier to curse the darkness rather than going to the trouble of lighting a candle.Plenty...but we don't waste our time contributing to an information site that allows others to edit or delete what we write on political issues. I have edited a few scientific entries in years past.
As I said, I don't bother reading much about political topics there. With exceptions of biographies of notable political figures, I seldom read anything other than scientific topics.
Yes, I also use Startpage however I do find that searches will defer to Google which is a left biased search engine today.It also helps to use DuckDuckGo as a search engine instead of Google. I've used both on the same political issue for several tests. Google will filter out conservative views or often place them at the bottom of a long list.
Wiki, Google and the MSM ART the darkness. Come away from the darkness!!!!Got it. It is way easier to curse the darkness rather than going to the trouble of lighting a candle.
With you there. I use DuckDuckGo all the time!It also helps to use DuckDuckGo as a search engine instead of Google. I've used both on the same political issue for several tests. Google will filter out conservative views or often place them at the bottom of a long list.
There are, but there remains hints of editors whom aren't conservative.Wikipedia is maintained by people both knowledgeable about a topic and interested enough to donate their time. Aren't there any conservatives that fit that description?