Anonymous
7/26/2025, 6:30:17 AM No.17872866
when did surface level/hobbyist research go from “wikipedia isn’t a source” to “wikipedia is my only source”
Replies:
Thread 17872866 - /his/
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 9:27:07 AM No.17873044
>>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.
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.
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 9:29:27 AM No.17873045
>>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
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
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 12:06:32 PM No.17873243
Anonymous
7/26/2025, 12:11:38 PM No.17873244
Using wikipedia is perfectly fine and its crowd-sourced, consensus-based is mostly effective in combating ideological bias and disinformation.