1 files changed, 92 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/org/blog/articles/wikipedia.txt b/org/blog/articles/wikipedia.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9530a2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/org/blog/articles/wikipedia.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+### 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.
+