Wikipedia is alright.
>>12105378imagine sucking this many cocks
>>12105442>>12105408Imagine being so poor you don't money like OP to donate to the causes you love.
>>12105452thats not it
Why do they beg for money when they make a fuckton each year without public donations? Also is it me or have their begging ads gotten way whinier recently. I saw a screencap in another thread and it was like 4 paragraphs long Jesus Christ
>>12105378>One hundred dollarydoos!?
>>12105378>giving money to wikipedia
>>12105378>having $100 to literally throw awayYou should have given that a homeless man on the street.
>>12105494They would just buy drugs with them so better not
>>12105501>implying wikipedia isn't buying drugs
>>12105501At least he probably wont rape a kid
BREAKING NEWS: OP is a faggot
>Wikipedia is alrightall right*
>>12105452>like opYou are not fooling anyone Samefag op, nigger
>>12105501A homeless guy buying drugs is far better than a left-wing think tank using it to sway public opinion regarding information both past and present. Next time I see the "change guy" at the gas station, I'm gonna throw him a $20 and I'll tell him to thank Jimbo Wales
>>12105378Do you know how enormous their endowment is? They could function off of it forever
>>12105494Why should I care about homeless people?
>>12105786Not really. Homeless people are often criminals, and keeping them alive would put my life in danger. It's better they strave, and that wikipedia gets the money because they produce a service I find useful.
>>12105786Homeless people should be killed
>>12105378Good goy>>12105455I actually told them that I had donated in the past (true) and was now not donating due to the level of politicised bias in their writing. Got what I assume was a copypasta about how they're not biased. I still use Wikipedia, but I can't bring myself to donate to people like that.
>>12105843Everyone is biased, nigger. You're just mad they won't fund your biases.
>>12105501Them buying drugs would have kept them from robbing someone or pulling a scam, and wouldn't have funded people who hate the White race. (And, more importantly, lie to destroy the White race.)
>>12105455Try turning off uBlockOrigin (yes, you're using uBlock, faggot) on Wikipedia versus a regular website, you'll see why very quickly.
>>12105854You just convinced me to donate to Wikipedia. Thanks.
>>12105846>Everyone is biased, nigger. You're just mad they won't fund your biases.So you're admitting your side is a bunch of liars now?
>>12105882>being biased means being a liarSounds like projection to me.
>>12105882Everyone lies, nigger. Its a necessary triat for survival. You're just being a pathetic moralist.
>>12105888And you just made it weird now.
>>12105378I remember browsing some kind of freetard creative commons image site. It BTFO'd wikipedia by quiet a lot, sad part is I haven't been able to find it again. It literally had endless museum artifact pictures from arround the world. Fml.
>>12105888So does this mean all the Holocaust denying, black hating bigot stormweenies that lurch over here from their containment board know they’re liars and just lie about their lies as a survival trait?
>>12105942Evola himself said he knew the Protocols of Zion were lies, but he didn't care because it was a useful propaganda tool. Its just that the mass majority of people don't have the brains, or time, to fact check things - they go with their gut. Pissing in the wind is the equivilant of trying change their minds with reason alone.
>>12105942Have you not read Sorel? Mythology is a primary tool of fascism.
>>12105453then what is it? you hate information thats easily accessible to the masses?
>>12105953Sort of shitty, isn’t it?>>12105958Yes, but Ebola … I mean Evola wanted to have Conan the Barbarian run society because he was buttmad no one thought the aristocracy was worth paying attention to. I guess you’re right in that sense then. What better way to get people to act against their own interests than to lie to them?
>>12105966… true. An invented shared mythos is a core pillar there.
>>12105501Why is it bad for a homeless person to buy drugs? I donate the money to make his situation less shitty. If drugs help provide relief for him, then so be it.
>>12105378it has its good and bad. but the funniest thing about it is 99% of its detractors read their history from it.
>>12105452Reminder that their lolberg founder owns Wikia/Fandom and gets mad advertisement money from it. If he wanted he could just donate half a percent of his revenue and they'd never have to beg normal people for it.
Wikipedia is like the least biased shit you can find on the web out there and people will still seethe out of their minds about it.
>>12106730>Wikipedia is like the least biased shit you can find on the web out there and people will still seethe out of their minds about it.Are you retarded? Have you seen the GamerGate article?
>>12105843>I still use Wikipedia, but I can't bring myself to donate to people like that.Same here, why give money to faggots that hate you?>>12105887It is when your biased towards bullshit buddy. At the very least they shouldn't pretend to be neutral because they obviously are not.>>12105958No, Evola said he didn't care if it was authentic, not if it wasn't true. Whether it is "authentic" or not is irrelevant, only its veracity, and as we see it has been shown to be true. Nice lie though.
>>12106763True =/= fact. Truth can be whatever I want it to be as beliefs can be included in what is the truth. Evola knew it was a fake but still promoted it for the sake for propaganda.
>>12106730t. Hasn't read the Wikipedia article of anything he's familiar with that's been touched by Amerimutt politics
>>12106790>>12106763>"The problem of the authenticity of this document is secondary and has to be replaced by the much more serious and essential problem of its truthfulness">Yeah, this shit is fabricated. Still true, tho. - EvolaThis shit is why we communists maintain that reactionary ""thought"" is a fucking pathology. Things are true, according to them, because it FEELS (>reals) like it should be true. Every single "criticism" they levy at us is just fucking projection. Peak idealism - everything is made up, because their worldview depends on that shit, and they think reality has to just adjust itself to them.
>>12106896Yeah sure buddy
Which wiki topics interest you so much that you prefer it to other sources, Aussie anon?
>>12106940You don't uncritically read the articles, you use the articles as a starting point to find sources and then you read those sources for yourselves.Don't use Wikipedia itself, use the sources.
>>12105969>easily accessible to the masses.Let me fucking guess, you have never edited articles and you never encountered the drama-field abomination that is wikipedia bureacracy apparatus.You think jannies/mod on reddit are power tripping fags, wait til you see wikipedia ones.
>>12105942Yes. Sartre is a retard, but he pointed out the "debate me bro" strategy quite brilliantly.>>12105953
>>12105378104 AUDWhat is that like $32 USD?
>>12105378 What we need is editors, not even more money for expensive travel and feminist women editathons and whatever other irrelevant things WMF spends its large amount of money on.>>12105908 Probably search.creativecommons.orgIf that wasn't the site afaik it's the best there is to find any of the few free licensed images. Wikimedia Commons isn't too bad but only searches WMC.
>>12106986>Don't use Wikipedia itself, use the sources.yeah I sure love Johnson 13; 137-38; 84, and page 187 of Goble, Alan. The Complete Index to Literary Sources in Film. Walter de Gruyter, 1999 is another one of my favoritesNo one actually does this. you don't do this. Cut the bullshit.
>>12107546>creativecommons.orgif it isn't this one this one at least gives very close results, thanks anon
>>12105378You guys may crucify me for this, but I think the bibliographical section for history and literature articles on Wikipedia are very useful for recommendations for more obscure works on the topic you aren’t likely to find yourself if you’re not already invested. And I’ll even go so far as to say their scholarship on one or two pages have positively surprised me before, as I was sure that whoever wrote it wouldn’t be able to source or it, or just seemingly pulled a quote from some decades old newspaper out of the past that goes above and beyond what is basically doing research for free. Of course as many good pages there are, I’m sure there are just as many abysmal ones
>>12107879The more "political", controversial, or current a topic is, the worse the wiki article for it is. Which makes sense, an encyclopedia format was never designed for dealing with current events, matters of pure opinion and so on. And was never designed to be edited competitively and cope with coordinated edit campaigns.Also, wikipedia articles for corporations, organizations, and individuals are heavily "curated" by hired staff who specifically manage the pages as a part of PR work- in other words, not remotely a reliable source.Of course, Charles V does not have a PR department anymore so the article on him isn't biased. But look up random celebrities, politicians, etc and you're likely going to get the PR team's words. People who are highly obscure will probably be 100% self-promotion, people who are highly notable will probably be closer to one bias or another as well because their reputation becomes a political question. People in the middle, like well-known but uncontroversial personalities, are the least biased, notable enough to attract attention for anti-self-promotion work, but not so big they can coordinate edit wars or buy the help of high-tier editors and "take over" the article so to speak.
>>12105854>>12105985If a homeless person randomly has $100 to spend on drugs, they're going to get really fucking high. When that wears off, they'll have worse cravings for the drug than before because they'll be used to getting really fucking high. This would make them even more likely to steal or something so they could do it again.Depends on the homeless person though. If they're a bad addict that's how it goes.
>>12107960>>12107879wikipedia was able to tell me:. hyksos article is under academic war to determine if they ever had IE derived elites (at a certain point). there was a rummor that "goldman and sachs" was involved in one of the first economic crisis in the USSo in between the war betwin propaganda fags somebody out there that can write the facts.
>>12105985The is no "relief" because the drugs wear off fast.
>>12107960also, Wikipedia is startlingly better and more reliable than it was even a few years ago. Seriously, think back to what year it was when you first heard someone, probably a schoolteacher, say "don't use Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source"- 10 years ago? Mote? Less than a decade ago, Wikipedia pages looked like this:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Content_rating&oldid=568366919https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dvorak_keyboard_layout&oldid=569721792#Comparison_of_the_QWERTY_and_Dvorak_layoutshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MyMathLab&oldid=568980180#FeaturesLots of terrible shit, advertising, straight up false information, huge and obvious bias, even though the "big" articles were roughly okay.Want to go back even further? Behold, even articles about fundamental concepts and massive historical events were complete piles of shit over a decade ago.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paganism&oldid=273702https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy&oldid=336610238https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thirty_Years%27_War&oldid=959313https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&oldid=1002786\https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Revolution&oldid=4442495This reads at about the level you'd expect from an American middle school classroom, sometimes even less, including rather bizarre diatribes and completely unsourced sections full of speculation and opinion. Go to random articles' history and sort by oldest if you want to see more.When you hear someone pass down the advice "wikipedia bad" they're passing down advice from teachers who would read this^ shit. But it's been almost 20 years, the site isn't a shitty blog anymore. Wikipedia is the best extant readily accessible source for information about a lot of things.
>>12108040Teachers tell students not to use wikipedia since they want you to find proper sources.
>>12105378>Australianimagine my shock
>>12105378Jimmy Wales is very wealthy after selling Wikia/Fandom. Let him fund it himself. Never donating to that smug fuck.
>>12105378For Jews and shitlibs, yes.
>>12105378Kikepedia can't be trusted on any contentious issue as it cherry picks sources to suit narratives.It's essentially a modern day ministry of the truth.
>>12108141>>12108169I miss the before times "da Jews" was not the answer to everything even outside of /pol/.
>>12106730Read an article about any contemporary political figure or party
>>12105811>poor people should be killed>I love my globalist truth machine!The state of "leftists" in the current year
>check sources for claims on article about political figure of the past decade>Huffington Post, Politico, Daily Beast, etc. listed
Wikipedia is useful to figure out "who" or "what" someone or something is, but, if you have a research interest in a topic...take wikipedia with a grain of salt.
>>12108259>read sentence that seems like an extreme stretch with a political bias>it has like 15 sources attached to it, as some sort of weird self-consistent moralisation for the sourcers
>>12105786>left-wing think tank using it to sway public opinionWikipedia is rightist
>>12106741t. election tourist
>>12105378Wikipedia is AWESOME if you're a Jew who hates whites and wants them all dead.
>>12108389You don’t really believe this do you?
>>12108473Nope, it's not a safespace for jews anymore, theories pushed exclussively by jews are golem are merely cited as "hypothesis" togheter with their counter hypothesis.
>>12108510I assume their definition of it being rightist is it not lying about rightists enoughI know a liberal journalist who considers Reddit a far right website These people are mentally ill
>>12105452>Loves WikipediaI have a library card and an IQ over room temperature. I bet you have a funko pop collection.
>>12109222Leave my funko pops out of this! I'm trans btw
>>12108253>Globalism bad>Capitalism badFuck off, retard.
>>12108510>>12108643Look at any of their pages about communism, socialism, or socialist countries. Then look at what they say about capitalist economics.
>>12108389>>12109806No, you're both retarded political extremists that wikipedia paints you both in bad light. That's really all it is.
>>12109818I'm not really classifiable.
>>12105378Yes unironically. What are the alternatives anyway. Private encyclopedias, like universalis? I mean, even if you check holocaust denial pages on wikipedia, they obviously will say that negationists are wrong, but they'll enumerate those negationists argument, and even quote the main negationsts names, so one can do further research alone on those.
I edit wikipedia every now and then so if you read wikipedia there is *some* chance you've learned something thanks to me. You're welcome.