you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]InumaGaming Socialist 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

And that's why I've never trusted it as a source.

Use it for reference all you want but keep in mind what the information does and does not have on it.

[–]risistill me 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. It is useful tool for something like finding out where Sanders was born or which year he first became Mayor of Burlington. But nothing more controversial than that. It's also good for getting a quick overview of a topic with which you are unfamiliar, but only as a starting point for additional research.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]risistill me 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    it's a mirror of the viewpoints of the US oligarchy.

    Like almost everything else in this country, including films, plays, TV shows, etc. that are supposedly entertainment.

    [–]ageingrockstar 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Yes, for science and technology it's generally fine. However for current events and biographies of living people it's frequently highly biased. The problem is that these articles all are published under the same brand and wikipedia leverages its reputation from its much more objective articles to propagandise people on current affairs.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Yes, for science and technology it's generally fine.

    Aside from medical issues related to some word beginning with V... vacations? vaudeville? ventriloquists? vulcanologists? I forget the word sorry.

    [–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    <insert Guy Fawkes mask here>