you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Because this website is well-known for spreading disinformation (about legal problems that aren't legal problems):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

[–]reddugee 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Dear Mr socks,

Although I do appreciate your valiant efforts and regularly updoot your position, I am struck by the irony of your example of a disinfo site to dispel disinfo. Wikipedia is useful but not reliable on controversial matters and factual where there is no dispute. However, it is the corporate mouthpiece of official narrative and used as an agent of disinformation by foreign and domestic spooks. Also, it is occupied by a volunteer army of militant skeptics who use it as a bludgeon to misrepresent scientific evidence that they don’t like. https://swprs.org/wikipedia-disinformation-operation/

And https://web.archive.org/web/20191030100836/https://medium.com/@helen.buyniski/wikipedia-rotten-to-the-core-dcc435781c45

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, there are problems with some aspects of Wikipedia, as there would be with a massive site like that. In general, however, it's a quick resource for basic information. I think it doesn't require a mental heavyweight to understand that naturalnews.com is a shill website for right-wing special interests who are trying to build their policital base with anti-vaxers. Anti-vax believers are perhaps the most loyal supporters of the radical repuglicans, and will stop at nothing to excuse their actions with evidence from anti-science websites like naturalnews.com. Say what you will about Wikipedia, but naturalnews.com, Sinclaire, Fox, InfoWars, Breitbard, and many other right-wing sites are trying to get people to question facts and science.