Thread 17872866

when did surface level/hobbyist research go from “wikipedia isn’t a source” to “wikipedia is my only source”

>>17872866 (OP)
When discussions shifted from "hobbyists who have read actual paperback material/sources" to "hobbyists who's only knowledge of a topic are tiktoks and unsourced pixelated infographics conforming to their beliefs." Only having done a cursory read of a Wikipedia article unironically makes you more informed than the people in the second category.

>>17872866 (OP)
I can't really speak for others, but I never cite wikipeda directly, I always use it to find sources, where I would then cite those instead. If there is a claim that is unsourced or has a big [citation needed] I'll just use that as a jumping off point to Google around until I find a reliable source or not, in which case I'll just dismiss the claim

>>17872866 (OP)
get with the times, grandpa
it's ChatGPT now

Using wikipedia is perfectly fine and its crowd-sourced, consensus-based is mostly effective in combating ideological bias and disinformation.

>>17872866 (OP)
Just like how any hobby went to shit
when tourists start infesting it

>>17872866 (OP)
When normies became like: "I know for a fact that Leopold II killed millions because it says so on Wikipedia. What, you doubt Wikipedia? Are you a Holocaust denier or something?"

Wikipedia is an infinitely better source than just reading one book that reflects a single person's biases and cherrypickings, there's no better alternative that can even compete in efficiency and peer review

If Wikipedia is your primary source, you probably shouldn't be arguing with me online.

That's my philosophy.

>>17873244
>>17874595
Cope. If you're a normie who just has a casual interest in history and like to read wikipedia, then fine. But if you're arguing that its anything more than basic bitch sub History channel documentary stuff then you're retarded. What you probably dont see is all the sorts of edit wars that go on behind the scenes or the insane levels of left wing bias and bullshit that happens. Next time you're reading and article, take a look at the talk page or the profiles of the previous editors. Most of them are insufferable lelddit troons.

Source - I've been editing wikipedia for 4 years

>>17874809
>all the sorts of edit wars that go on behind the scenes
This is literally a point in favour of Wikipedia in that its content is being rigorously checked and contested.
>insane levels of left wing bias
Every book written in the past 50 years also has this. Wikipedia is no worse than the culture at large.

Wikipedia remains the best.

>>17873244
kek!!!!!! you baited those 4channers so hard bro, who would want to speak genuinely on the trolling website amirite?

>>17874595
wikipedia is biased, wikipedia editors pick and choose whichever sources support their narrative and autistically stalk pages to reverse other people's revisions. haven't read enough books/papers to talk about something without consulting wiki? then shut your stupid nigger mouth and never insert yourself into my hobby again, subhuman

>>17874853
this
i got in an edit war with some autist about the ending of the movie “threads” depicting rape (it’s fucking rape) versus “rough sex”
he won because i have a life

>>17874853
>authors are biased, authors pick and choose whichever sources support their narrative
You are just criticising humanity in general, which is fair, but it does not particularly discredit Wikipedia compared to other sources of information at all.
>my hobby
The world we live in is not a hobby.

>>17874880
have you ever considered not being fat as sin and going outside