Better blog format

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 92 deletions

diff --git a/org/blog/articles/wikipedia.txt b/org/blog/articles/wikipedia.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 9530a2b..0000000
--- a/org/blog/articles/wikipedia.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,92 +0,0 @@
-### Why do I write this?
-
-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 _why_ instead of just the _what_.
-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 **I am not defending wikipedia by any means** , quite the opposite
-actually. I am just here to tell you like most things in life **its bad but
-not for the reasons you think**.
-
-### _Its editted by random people on the internet_
-
-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.
-
-### On bias
-
-No where is without bias. No matter how much they try to get rid of it its
-still there. Its often more than just _a different way of looking at things_ ,
-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.  
-  
-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. **Wikipedia's bias is: neoliberal.** 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. **The
-most dangerous type of bias is bias that pretends its not bias.** 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.
-
-### Those who never speak are never wrong
-
-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. **The
-ideal source is something that is dialectical, analytical, and dense.**
-Wikipedia is just dense. **And the sources schools want us to use is none of
-those!**  
-  
-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.
-
-### Replacing wikipedia
-
-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. **A good wikipedia replacement does not exist.** 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.  
-  
-**Get yourself a library card!** 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 **what** to believe
-not **how** to believe.
-