diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'blog/articles/wikipedia.xml')
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/articles/wikipedia.xml | 103 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 103 deletions
diff --git a/blog/articles/wikipedia.xml b/blog/articles/wikipedia.xml deleted file mode 100644 index d1e0b9a..0000000 --- a/blog/articles/wikipedia.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,103 +0,0 @@ -<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> |