all 15 comments

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

If you use Wikipedia for basic facts, it's fine. If you want controversial details, you have to search for that separately. Even on a good day, controversy is debatable, and a crowd sourced repository like Wikipedia will never land squarely in the middle of any debate. Anyone who expects more from it is naive anyway.

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

Try using Wikipedia to get "basic facts" on nutrition. I dare you.

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

Maybe they're not so basic.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's like cheap Snopes only it sucks more.

[–]TimesThreeTheHighest 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

All I know is a lot of the movie reviews for anything before the 90s is usually nonsense.

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Examples please?

[–]TimesThreeTheHighest 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Steel Dawn was the most recent example I've seen. The reviews really don't reflect the movie's quality.

[–]Snow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't pay for watching moives.

[–]TimesThreeTheHighest 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Good to know, but what does that have to do with the comments above?

[–]Snow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They pay for people post good reviews,and I even don't pay for them.

[–]TimesThreeTheHighest 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's truth in that, at least for the higher-budget movies.

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

ORLY?

A WEBSITE THAT ANY ONE CAN EDIT FAILED?

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

I don't think it's anymore broken than anything else. At the end of the day, one person's 'stellar' link, is another's proverbial 'toilet tissue'.

I try to formulate my opinion by looking, and comparing several links, and trying to fact check from there.

The fact is, all the regular mainstream media outlets, such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, BBC(building 7), and others have promoted literal fake news.

Recently, in a small town paper near me, they ran a story as 'news', but the opening salvo was a supporting hyperbole for what came next.

Which was a promotion for a supposed small town grassroots organization targeting youth, that was neither left, or right............. but went onto state that their goal was to promote progressive left democratic candidates who support the new green deal.

My point, not news, and I don't think it could even be considered an 'op-ed', as it was a biased sales slogan in reality.

Gotta think, weigh out, and decide for yourself what's true, what's not, and how to conduct yourself when not running on autopilot of what they tell you to believe.

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

always go to discussion page for the real story

[–]Snow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I won't say it's "Broken",I would say the design of it is for manipulate if you have enough resource as reddit.