1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
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.
|
