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
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
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>
|
