Wikipedia is astroturfed BS for anything remotely politically related.
Useful if you want to learn about the Ivory-billed Woodpecker or a closed-cycle regenerative heat engine, etc…
So no politics and subjects with political implications such as history.
The point is you can check the citations to validate. It can be poisoned by wuzzles but you can discover that with just a bit of effort checking the citations.
Wikipedia is astroturfed BS for anything remotely politically related.
Useful if you want to learn about the Ivory-billed Woodpecker or a closed-cycle regenerative heat engine, etc…
So no politics and subjects with political implications such as history.
That’s what prolewiki is for
I trust no one with my history or geopolitics but ML’s.
Most informed, well read and thorough people on the planet
It’s really “strange” how people have this delusional viewpoint of wikipedia as neutral, honest, etc.
I guess it seems fine if you’ve got lib politics completely within the hegemonic narrative.
The point is you can check the citations to validate. It can be poisoned by wuzzles but you can discover that with just a bit of effort checking the citations.