Wrote wikipedia article

6 files changed, 357 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/blog/articles.xml b/blog/articles.xml
index 171c186..2a4bc69 100644
--- a/blog/articles.xml
+++ b/blog/articles.xml
@@ -1,5 +1,12 @@
 <channel>
   <item>
+    <title>On the issue of wikipedia</title>
+    <name>wikipedia</name>
+    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 10:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
+    <file>articles/wikipedia.xml</file>
+  </item>
+  
+  <item>
     <title>Dream log 1</title>
     <name>dreamlog1</name>
     <pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2025 01:51:00 GMT</pubDate>
diff --git a/blog/articles/wikipedia.xml b/blog/articles/wikipedia.xml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d1e0b9a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/blog/articles/wikipedia.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+<article>
+  <h3>Why do I write this?</h3>
+  <p>
+    Wikipedia is one of those things a lot of people like to shit on without really
+    thinking deep about the sytem as a whole. People tend to look for yes or no
+    answers than they should instead be trying to understand things on a dialectical
+    level so they can understand the <i>why</i> instead of just the <i>what</i>.
+    Teachers dont understand how the articles are actually editted, edge lords
+    like to shit on it without actually knowing the issues with wikipedia, youtubers
+    like to push out content shitting on wikipedia without ever going into the
+    actual details why wikipedia is bad... Before you start shitting your pants
+    <b>I am not defending wikipedia by any means</b>, quite the opposite actually.
+    I am just here to tell you like most things in life <b>its bad but not for the
+    reasons you think</b>.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3><i>Its editted by random people on the internet</i></h3>
+  <p>
+    And academic books are written by a few people in fancy buildings,
+    documentaries are made by a bunch of nerds with cameras, research papers
+    are written by old dudes in lab coats... With all of those there are systems
+    in place to make sure its reliable and yes, wikipedia does have a system in
+    place its just different than what other sources use. Thats what makes those
+    different from fucking reddit. All of those can be equally shitty if you
+    just eat up whatever is given to you instead of questing where it came from.
+    One thing all of those systems cant stop (thats if they even try) is bias.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>On bias</h3>
+  <p>
+    No where is without bias. No matter how much they try to get rid of it its
+    still there. Its often more than just <i>a different way of looking at
+    things</i>, it can be full on poising to the brain and flat out demand
+    you close off your mind. That is why religion is dogshit. Thats why
+    you gotta be strong and not let that shit in. A little god and jesus than
+    as soon as you know it being gay is a sin, women are objects, the church
+    controls you... a few good opinions and sources of information aint going
+    to save you, building up a philosophy and lens to view the world from can
+    be just as much as a tool to free the mind as it is a weapon to be misused
+    by shitty things like religion. As much as reading helps its a journy you
+    can only take alone.
+    <br/><br/>
+    Wikipedia's bias is not limited to just republican or democrat. Its not
+    communist or fascist either. It embodies the will of both republicans and
+    democrats, only aims to defend the status quo, and prefers to echo the words
+    of those with money and power. <b>Wikipedia's bias is: neoliberal.</b> Its
+    humanitarian enough to not appear as an opinion held by asses but at the
+    same time isnt willing to hold people in power accountable. Anything bad
+    america does is covered up and pushed deep into parts of the articles barely
+    anyone reads, anything bad enemies of america does is made much easier to
+    find. <b>The most dangerous type of bias is bias that pretends its not
+    bias.</b> Once something makes you believe its nonbias it can start making
+    you believe everything it says is the unquestable truth and slowly lock
+    up your mind. Yes, even I am bias.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>Those who never speak are never wrong</h3>
+  <p>
+    Lets get this out of the way, wikipedia may not be deep and analytical
+    but it tends to be very dense. Schools dont like that because they dont
+    want their students to gain new information: they want their students to
+    to quote fancy sounding quotes from people that went to colleges that
+    most cant afford. <b>The ideal source is something that is dialectical,
+    analytical, and dense.</b> Wikipedia is just dense. <b>And the sources
+    schools want us to use is none of those!</b>
+    <br/><br/>
+    The more you say the more incorrect things you will say even with a
+    constant error rate, the more you say the more you need to fact check
+    which could get overwhelming increasing the error rate. How do academics
+    get around this? By stuffing their articles with word porn to make it
+    as un-dense as possible so they can say barely anything while keeping their
+    word count up. That is a terrible way to do things. Its better to openly
+    define a way of going about understanding the world so everything can be
+    connected and tied together while giving the reader the authority to
+    analyze your words instead of eating it up. When you speak you have to
+    risk being wrong and if you cant learn to accept that and continue
+    learning new things than its better to not speak at all. Wikipedia
+    still only goes half way, enough to scare away schools not but enough
+    for some topics.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>Replacing wikipedia</h3>
+  <p>
+    Wikipedia for the most part is usable not going to lie. Today I was
+    using it to look up information on anime. I even link to wikipedia
+    on my website sometimes. I am careful about what articles I link
+    though, not all wikipedia articles are equal. <b>A good wikipedia
+    replacement does not exist.</b> They all have the same issues:
+    everyone is too focused on making a nonbias source when they
+    should be openly announcing their bias and writing more
+    analytical.
+    <br/><br/>
+    <b>Get yourself a library card!</b> While wikipedia will cover
+    you for quick questions your base of knowledge should be built
+    by reading books. Not everything can be summarized and quoted.
+    A good book is one that takes its time to buildup information
+    while still being dense enough. A book will tell you a complete
+    story instead of just data points. A good book opens your mind
+    by showing new ways information can connect. Wikipedia, news
+    articles... only ever serve to give you disconnected data points:
+    aka tell <b>what</b> to believe not <b>how</b> to believe.
+  </p>
+</article>
diff --git a/blog/feed.xml b/blog/feed.xml
index 00ea328..bac460b 100644
--- a/blog/feed.xml
+++ b/blog/feed.xml
@@ -11,6 +11,120 @@
     </image>
     
     <item>
+      <title>On the issue of wikipedia</title>
+      <link>http://nathansmith117.beevomit.org/blog#wikipedia</link>
+      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2025 10:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
+      <description>
+        <![CDATA[
+          <article>
+  <h3>Why do I write this?</h3>
+  <p>
+    Wikipedia is one of those things a lot of people like to shit on without really
+    thinking deep about the sytem as a whole. People tend to look for yes or no
+    answers than they should instead be trying to understand things on a dialectical
+    level so they can understand the <i>why</i> instead of just the <i>what</i>.
+    Teachers dont understand how the articles are actually editted, edge lords
+    like to shit on it without actually knowing the issues with wikipedia, youtubers
+    like to push out content shitting on wikipedia without ever going into the
+    actual details why wikipedia is bad... Before you start shitting your pants
+    <b>I am not defending wikipedia by any means</b>, quite the opposite actually.
+    I am just here to tell you like most things in life <b>its bad but not for the
+    reasons you think</b>.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3><i>Its editted by random people on the internet</i></h3>
+  <p>
+    And academic books are written by a few people in fancy buildings,
+    documentaries are made by a bunch of nerds with cameras, research papers
+    are written by old dudes in lab coats... With all of those there are systems
+    in place to make sure its reliable and yes, wikipedia does have a system in
+    place its just different than what other sources use. Thats what makes those
+    different from fucking reddit. All of those can be equally shitty if you
+    just eat up whatever is given to you instead of questing where it came from.
+    One thing all of those systems cant stop (thats if they even try) is bias.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>On bias</h3>
+  <p>
+    No where is without bias. No matter how much they try to get rid of it its
+    still there. Its often more than just <i>a different way of looking at
+    things</i>, it can be full on poising to the brain and flat out demand
+    you close off your mind. That is why religion is dogshit. Thats why
+    you gotta be strong and not let that shit in. A little god and jesus than
+    as soon as you know it being gay is a sin, women are objects, the church
+    controls you... a few good opinions and sources of information aint going
+    to save you, building up a philosophy and lens to view the world from can
+    be just as much as a tool to free the mind as it is a weapon to be misused
+    by shitty things like religion. As much as reading helps its a journy you
+    can only take alone.
+    <br/><br/>
+    Wikipedia's bias is not limited to just republican or democrat. Its not
+    communist or fascist either. It embodies the will of both republicans and
+    democrats, only aims to defend the status quo, and prefers to echo the words
+    of those with money and power. <b>Wikipedia's bias is: neoliberal.</b> Its
+    humanitarian enough to not appear as an opinion held by asses but at the
+    same time isnt willing to hold people in power accountable. Anything bad
+    america does is covered up and pushed deep into parts of the articles barely
+    anyone reads, anything bad enemies of america does is made much easier to
+    find. <b>The most dangerous type of bias is bias that pretends its not
+    bias.</b> Once something makes you believe its nonbias it can start making
+    you believe everything it says is the unquestable truth and slowly lock
+    up your mind. Yes, even I am bias.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>Those who never speak are never wrong</h3>
+  <p>
+    Lets get this out of the way, wikipedia may not be deep and analytical
+    but it tends to be very dense. Schools dont like that because they dont
+    want their students to gain new information: they want their students to
+    to quote fancy sounding quotes from people that went to colleges that
+    most cant afford. <b>The ideal source is something that is dialectical,
+    analytical, and dense.</b> Wikipedia is just dense. <b>And the sources
+    schools want us to use is none of those!</b>
+    <br/><br/>
+    The more you say the more incorrect things you will say even with a
+    constant error rate, the more you say the more you need to fact check
+    which could get overwhelming increasing the error rate. How do academics
+    get around this? By stuffing their articles with word porn to make it
+    as un-dense as possible so they can say barely anything while keeping their
+    word count up. That is a terrible way to do things. Its better to openly
+    define a way of going about understanding the world so everything can be
+    connected and tied together while giving the reader the authority to
+    analyze your words instead of eating it up. When you speak you have to
+    risk being wrong and if you cant learn to accept that and continue
+    learning new things than its better to not speak at all. Wikipedia
+    still only goes half way, enough to scare away schools not but enough
+    for some topics.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>Replacing wikipedia</h3>
+  <p>
+    Wikipedia for the most part is usable not going to lie. Today I was
+    using it to look up information on anime. I even link to wikipedia
+    on my website sometimes. I am careful about what articles I link
+    though, not all wikipedia articles are equal. <b>A good wikipedia
+    replacement does not exist.</b> They all have the same issues:
+    everyone is too focused on making a nonbias source when they
+    should be openly announcing their bias and writing more
+    analytical.
+    <br/><br/>
+    <b>Get yourself a library card!</b> While wikipedia will cover
+    you for quick questions your base of knowledge should be built
+    by reading books. Not everything can be summarized and quoted.
+    A good book is one that takes its time to buildup information
+    while still being dense enough. A book will tell you a complete
+    story instead of just data points. A good book opens your mind
+    by showing new ways information can connect. Wikipedia, news
+    articles... only ever serve to give you disconnected data points:
+    aka tell <b>what</b> to believe not <b>how</b> to believe.
+  </p>
+</article>
+
+        ]]>
+      </description>
+    </item>
+            
+    <item>
       <title>Dream log 1</title>
       <link>http://nathansmith117.beevomit.org/blog#dreamlog1</link>
       <pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2025 01:51:00 GMT</pubDate>
diff --git a/blog/generate_html.py b/blog/generate_html.py
index 7360fa3..1d8d063 100755
--- a/blog/generate_html.py
+++ b/blog/generate_html.py
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ def main():
     with open("template.html", "r") as fp:
         template = fp.read()
 
+    article_list = "<ul>\n"
     article_html = ""
 
     # Get articles from rss
@@ -49,10 +50,18 @@ def main():
         # Remove article tags.
         article = article[article.find("<article>")+9::]
         article = article[:article.find("</article>"):]
+
+        # Add article table to html
         article_html += make_article_table(article_info, article)
 
+        # Add article to list.
+        article_list += \
+            f"<li><a href=\"#{article_info["name"]}\">{article_info["title"]}</a></li>\n"
+
+    article_list += "</ul>"
+
     # Format the articles into the html
-    template = template.format(articles=article_html)
+    template = template.format(article_list=article_list, articles=article_html)
     print(template)
 
 if __name__ == "__main__":
diff --git a/blog/index.html b/blog/index.html
index 20e1de4..5a54600 100644
--- a/blog/index.html
+++ b/blog/index.html
@@ -47,11 +47,128 @@ table {
                     </p>
                 </td>
             </tr>
+
+            <tr>
+                <td>
+                    <ul>
+<li><a href="#wikipedia">On the issue of wikipedia</a></li>
+<li><a href="#dreamlog1">Dream log 1</a></li>
+<li><a href="#overthinking">Overthinking</a></li>
+</ul>
+                </td>
+            </tr>
         </table>
 
         <!-- Python will insert the articles from rss here -->
         
         <table border="1" width="60%">
+            <tr><td><h2 id="wikipedia">On the issue of wikipedia</h2>--- Mon, 31 Mar 2025 10:55:00 GMT</td></tr>
+            <tr><td>
+  <h3>Why do I write this?</h3>
+  <p>
+    Wikipedia is one of those things a lot of people like to shit on without really
+    thinking deep about the sytem as a whole. People tend to look for yes or no
+    answers than they should instead be trying to understand things on a dialectical
+    level so they can understand the <i>why</i> instead of just the <i>what</i>.
+    Teachers dont understand how the articles are actually editted, edge lords
+    like to shit on it without actually knowing the issues with wikipedia, youtubers
+    like to push out content shitting on wikipedia without ever going into the
+    actual details why wikipedia is bad... Before you start shitting your pants
+    <b>I am not defending wikipedia by any means</b>, quite the opposite actually.
+    I am just here to tell you like most things in life <b>its bad but not for the
+    reasons you think</b>.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3><i>Its editted by random people on the internet</i></h3>
+  <p>
+    And academic books are written by a few people in fancy buildings,
+    documentaries are made by a bunch of nerds with cameras, research papers
+    are written by old dudes in lab coats... With all of those there are systems
+    in place to make sure its reliable and yes, wikipedia does have a system in
+    place its just different than what other sources use. Thats what makes those
+    different from fucking reddit. All of those can be equally shitty if you
+    just eat up whatever is given to you instead of questing where it came from.
+    One thing all of those systems cant stop (thats if they even try) is bias.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>On bias</h3>
+  <p>
+    No where is without bias. No matter how much they try to get rid of it its
+    still there. Its often more than just <i>a different way of looking at
+    things</i>, it can be full on poising to the brain and flat out demand
+    you close off your mind. That is why religion is dogshit. Thats why
+    you gotta be strong and not let that shit in. A little god and jesus than
+    as soon as you know it being gay is a sin, women are objects, the church
+    controls you... a few good opinions and sources of information aint going
+    to save you, building up a philosophy and lens to view the world from can
+    be just as much as a tool to free the mind as it is a weapon to be misused
+    by shitty things like religion. As much as reading helps its a journy you
+    can only take alone.
+    <br/><br/>
+    Wikipedia's bias is not limited to just republican or democrat. Its not
+    communist or fascist either. It embodies the will of both republicans and
+    democrats, only aims to defend the status quo, and prefers to echo the words
+    of those with money and power. <b>Wikipedia's bias is: neoliberal.</b> Its
+    humanitarian enough to not appear as an opinion held by asses but at the
+    same time isnt willing to hold people in power accountable. Anything bad
+    america does is covered up and pushed deep into parts of the articles barely
+    anyone reads, anything bad enemies of america does is made much easier to
+    find. <b>The most dangerous type of bias is bias that pretends its not
+    bias.</b> Once something makes you believe its nonbias it can start making
+    you believe everything it says is the unquestable truth and slowly lock
+    up your mind. Yes, even I am bias.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>Those who never speak are never wrong</h3>
+  <p>
+    Lets get this out of the way, wikipedia may not be deep and analytical
+    but it tends to be very dense. Schools dont like that because they dont
+    want their students to gain new information: they want their students to
+    to quote fancy sounding quotes from people that went to colleges that
+    most cant afford. <b>The ideal source is something that is dialectical,
+    analytical, and dense.</b> Wikipedia is just dense. <b>And the sources
+    schools want us to use is none of those!</b>
+    <br/><br/>
+    The more you say the more incorrect things you will say even with a
+    constant error rate, the more you say the more you need to fact check
+    which could get overwhelming increasing the error rate. How do academics
+    get around this? By stuffing their articles with word porn to make it
+    as un-dense as possible so they can say barely anything while keeping their
+    word count up. That is a terrible way to do things. Its better to openly
+    define a way of going about understanding the world so everything can be
+    connected and tied together while giving the reader the authority to
+    analyze your words instead of eating it up. When you speak you have to
+    risk being wrong and if you cant learn to accept that and continue
+    learning new things than its better to not speak at all. Wikipedia
+    still only goes half way, enough to scare away schools not but enough
+    for some topics.
+  </p>
+
+  <h3>Replacing wikipedia</h3>
+  <p>
+    Wikipedia for the most part is usable not going to lie. Today I was
+    using it to look up information on anime. I even link to wikipedia
+    on my website sometimes. I am careful about what articles I link
+    though, not all wikipedia articles are equal. <b>A good wikipedia
+    replacement does not exist.</b> They all have the same issues:
+    everyone is too focused on making a nonbias source when they
+    should be openly announcing their bias and writing more
+    analytical.
+    <br/><br/>
+    <b>Get yourself a library card!</b> While wikipedia will cover
+    you for quick questions your base of knowledge should be built
+    by reading books. Not everything can be summarized and quoted.
+    A good book is one that takes its time to buildup information
+    while still being dense enough. A book will tell you a complete
+    story instead of just data points. A good book opens your mind
+    by showing new ways information can connect. Wikipedia, news
+    articles... only ever serve to give you disconnected data points:
+    aka tell <b>what</b> to believe not <b>how</b> to believe.
+  </p>
+</td></tr>
+        </table>
+    
+        <table border="1" width="60%">
             <tr><td><h2 id="dreamlog1">Dream log 1</h2>--- Sun, 30 Mar 2025 01:51:00 GMT</td></tr>
             <tr><td>
   <p>
diff --git a/blog/template.html b/blog/template.html
index bd460fe..de3af96 100644
--- a/blog/template.html
+++ b/blog/template.html
@@ -47,6 +47,12 @@ table {{
                     </p>
                 </td>
             </tr>
+
+            <tr>
+                <td>
+                    {article_list}
+                </td>
+            </tr>
         </table>
 
         <!-- Python will insert the articles from rss here -->