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