Thread 106499062

Anons on /g/ like to heap virulent abuse on it every other day, but when need arises, they go back crawling to it on all fours, reeking with desperation, and can't even name an alternative that's even half as good. I laugh.

>>106499062 (OP)
It's very useful, and only gets heat because people like to project their unfounded beliefs and delusions onto it.

>Anons on /g/ like to heap virulent abuse on it every other day
i love making shit up

>>106499062 (OP)
>>106499174
nobody here even talks about wikipedia, much less to hate on it, what are you on about?

>>106499341
Check the catalog. Every other thread is railing on Wikipedia.

>>106499328
>>106499341
Methinks he chose the wrong image.

>>106499062 (OP)
I never even go there at all. I used to check the Early Life section, but now I never need to.

>>106499362
wehh i actually checked and now i feel dumb for falling for this :<

>>106499377
op is a silly billy confirmed

>>106499377
>>106499409
>>106499426
why do zoomers talk like this

Wikipedia is a city of 7 million articles. While there are shithole districts on Wikipedia (usually indicated by blue locks in the corner), there are some nice articles that are left alone. Unless Elon Musk gets Grok to write an encyclopedia, we are kind of stuck with wiki, and I learnt that the hard way.

>>106499062 (OP)
metapedia
etc
/thread

>>106499062 (OP)
>Alternative to propaganda is more propaganda
kek

>>106499062 (OP)
I'm not allowed to use Wikipedia.

>>106499062 (OP)
the holocaust didn't happen. get over it.

>>106499062 (OP)
>, and can't even name an alternative that's even half as good
the library, which were all closed now thanks for playing human beings, enjoy the dystopian future dlc.

>>106499062 (OP)
I was a wikipedia editor for 5 years. Not to sound smug about it, but the general article quality in my field of expertise (that I have a phd for) was abysmal and I was bringing it up to current academic standards. I've quit this year though after beeing the victim of admin abuse. There was an ideologically driven other author doing an edit war, I called him out and reported him. A first admin basically agreed with me but refused to do anything about it. Then the other user got his friends involved to gang up on me and insult me, including another admin. That's when I quit. I did some research after that though and found out that the hostile author keeps getting temporary bans every year for a decade now for insults and edit wars, but is protected because he's a tranny.

>>106499062 (OP)
>go to article on the trans woman musician called "Ramona Andra Langley"
>edit this article
>replace she/her with he/him
>publish this edited article
>refresh
>got reverted
>maybe it's time to edit again
>get rekt and blocked by admins

I am not allowed to use Retardpedia

>>106499062 (OP)
Wikipedia has cancer

>>106499062 (OP)
This is how they waste your donation money.

>>106499845
>chudpedia
Yea, no thanks.

>>106500610
You do not have a PhD.

>>106500900
Embezzlement.

>>106499062 (OP)
It's a left-leaning website that regularly censors information. Use it to look up the dates of events, vidya release info and other static details but the rest isn't trustworthy.
>>106500610
Many such cases.

>>106501095
>It's a left-leaning website
Let me guess all universities are also left wing indoctrination camps. Let me guess reality itself has a liberal bias. Why are all high tech science stem people ao goddamn liberal its definetly a conspiracy by (((anyone named by trump))))

>>106501095
are you trying to imply that every encyclopedia ever written that has been used in academia has a left wing bias?

>>106499174
fpbp

>>106499062 (OP)
It's shit, I'm sorry. Only useful for very surface level knowledge, for actual information you need to rely on proper books, you know like literally all academics and researchers do. You'd probably get fired from your job if they caught you using wikipedia lmao.
>>106502693
>implying wikipedia is an encyclopedia or that anyone in academia uses it
they literally teach little kids in middle school to not use wikipedia these days.

>>106499523
>zoomers
you have no idea what you're talking about. jesus christ.

>>106503021
also this guy is 100% correct even if he's larping >>106500610
literally go ask your professors in uni for any field how reliable wikipedia is and they'll tell you it's shit, which you should already know though because they should be telling you not to use it the first time you have to research anything.
My field is nothing special (basically near eastern studies), and the wikipedia articles are often outdated with very old information or written by people that aren't even trying to be academic (sometimes they're literally just apologetics lmao).