>claim has a citation
>click on citation
>nothing supporting the claim
When did Wikipedia die in your eyes?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>claim has a citation >click on citation >nothing supporting the claim When did Wikipedia die in your eyes?
When did people stop going to the library to do their research?
pdfs
when government mandated book burning and history also written by the victor
But thats always been the case
>book burning
>written by the victor
do you reaaaally think wikipedia is any better? i find it hard to believe you're this moronic
why did you stop using britannica?
i only use https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html
> implying ~~*they*~~ aren't filling our ~~*li rarys*~~ with psedo science
homie cannot even spell shit correctly.
You know their correct yeah?
Meds.
>go to library
>antiracist baby and other grooming works
it’s all so tiresome
>claim
what articles are you reading that only "claim" things?
Neuroscience and psychology articles.
>replication rate of 14%
>14%
That's pretty good given the current replication crisis.
I imagine Sociology is incredibly low.
That's by design, as research needs government funding research is just a government mouthpiece, and we need "experts" to tell us what kind of knowledge is real i.e. can I draw a line through these data points, so it fits with the current theory, ok it's real; based on some other shaky theory that doesn't push government agenda fake obviously; based on some shaky theory that does push government agenda, hecking real and valid.
>claim has a citation
>click on citation
>404 error
>claim has a citation
>click on citation
>citation hidden behind paywall
>claim has 10 citations
>they all redirect to the same site
You might want to mark these you know
>claim has citation
>click on citation
>it's just a dark, out of focus picture of some anon's ass
>claim is actually 100% true
>op confirmed to be homosexual due to the gape of his anus
>OP makes a claim
>doesn't provide a citation
congrats, you are worse than wikipedia lol
People don't use OP thread as research
so what else is OP's post supposed to be? entertainment?
cool, why are you having a discussion under an entertainment thread then?
>so what else is OP's post supposed to be? entertainment?
yes? this is IQfy lol do you do research on boards dot IQfy dot org slash gee?
When did you realize "dude trust me bro" is actually the best source?
When troons starting editing 90% of the entries
rent free
i'm not sure it's that, troons seem to use and push opinion pieces as fact, they don't seem to just skip the citation
i guess it's that all the good contributors got ousted by troons or left due to their dishonesty and now you get guys who have no idea what they're doing and can't comprehend why it's wrong to just make shit up or skip the citations, kinda like the welsh wikipedia guy
>Can see when an argument is unsupported in moments with the click of a button.
>This is considered bad
Huh?
most of the times the reference is dead
Yeah, so you know to look elsewhere for information. Why is this supposed to be better than a static resource you can't easily check?
Whoops, I mean "Why is this supposed to be WORSE than a static resource you can't easily check?"
Wikipedia works as a content aggregator, has hyperlinks, and is widely used.
Certainly, I'm not saying wikipedia is bad. I'm saying you can verify the information that is present quickly, and if a hyperlink is dead you immediately know that you need to find corroborating evidence for whatever topic. The idea that it's lesser because its references are immediately verifiable (at least, at a surface level) is ill thought out.
It's more bad that Wikipedia editors are openly academically dishonest. It's almost cynical.
Wiki itself has never been trustworthy source to begin with, so it never died as one. It still is very usable and convenient.
it's good for maths
It's good for quick references on certain topics and as a collection of trivia to understand something on surface level, but it never was meant to be a full-on research resource.
This
>rent f-HACK
dust
About 20 years ago, when the deletionists moved in.
Frick Wikipedia, I miss Encarta
https://vancouvertimes.org/paul-pelosi-charged-with-possession-of-child-porn/
wikipedoa says this is fake news
I wonder what the next step is, what is a superior model to Wikipedia. It was a good try at a reliable public information base, but it obviously has failed in a lot of departments. At least, politically unimportant stuff still has decent articles.
off-site discussion pages for each article
Page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
Anon1: lol he sux
Anon2: no i suk his cok
Anon3: he wasn't actually born in alabama
and all you'd have to do is sort through those comments somehow
hopefully not by using an upvote/downvote system
That would be great.
The whole "where is le source!?!?!" editor autism has gone waaaay to far. 99.9% of things don't need a source/citation. Crowd sourced knowledge shouldn't be "source!?!?!?!" based.
wait nevermind
these are wikipedia talk pages, basically
although I'm still wondering if there could be an improvement to how they're sorted
Lmao
Then fix it dumbass
That’s the whole fricking point of Wikipedia
until you get banned for "violating the guidelines"
>Black person Black person Black person Black person [8]
>[8] MY NUTS LMAOOOOOOOOO
>What do you mean it got reverted this is UNFAIR I'm an AMERICAN and we have FREE SPEACH this is TYRANNY
The "point" of wikipedia is an illusion of an "open source" information vault that is really controlled by corporate interests
just fork it
People do that, in droves. Or did you forget about Installgentoo wiki or cybsec.io before it fell? And there must be about a hundred fandom wikis too.
When Tumblr took over. About 10 years ago. The real problem isn't really the far-left mods, but Wikipedia not using filters against activism. And their sourcing methodology is a fricking joke (blogs have more value than peer-reviewed STEM research).
what about putting a plus sign next to the really good sources
[4][5+][6]
> And their sourcing methodology is a fricking joke (blogs have more value than peer-reviewed STEM research).
What? How?
>What are archives
metapedia is a good alternative, I use it all the time
it didn't. just learn to use it properly. fantastic tool.
Hasn't died yet. I guess it dies if no one contributes
When the deletionists won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory
10 thousand citations and not a single valid source, just tabloid tier articles
>https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/secrecyandsociety/vol1/iss2/ isn't a valid source
Ok sweetie, please don't cry, mommy is here.
White baby syndrome.
Plenty of them seem to be research or books written on the subject
They’ll also cite a 1000+ page report to support a claim, but fail to say where the claim is supported
>claim has a citation
>click on citation
>nothing supporting the claim
This is not just a problem of Wikipedia. This is literally how the entirety of modern "information" works. The only accepted standard of judgement is whether something comes from the Holy Sources or not.
Reason doesn't count.
Logic doesn't count.
Facts don't count.
Evidence doesn't count.
The sole and only thing that counts is the SOOOOOORCE.
It's the new Ipse Dixit
Knowledge is based entirely on "trust" (read: faith), like in the middle ages.
There was a reference once to an interview on some morning radio show, the kind that runs 5+ hours every day, that didn't have a timestamp. I wanted to add a timestamp but didn't want to listen to the 25 hours of content for the week referenced. That's the day I learned how to use an automatic speech recognition model to find the correct timestamp and verify/improve the citation. Ask me anything.
When they kept begging for donations even though they were covered for several decades.
>Please donate! Our 1000 very useful employees have to pay rent in San Francisco!
When I found out that there is a concerted group of israelites patrolling and dictating what is posted