[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: wikimedia donation.png (31 KB, 703x361)
31 KB
31 KB PNG
Wikipedia is alright.
>>
Good goyim
>>
>>12105378
imagine sucking this many cocks
>>
>>12105442
>>12105408
Imagine being so poor you don't money like OP to donate to the causes you love.
>>
>>12105452
thats 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
>>
File: AUD.jpg (19 KB, 442x333)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>12105378
>One hundred dollarydoos!?
>>
>>12105378
>giving money to wikipedia
>>
>>12105378
>having $100 to literally throw away
You should have given that a homeless man on the street.
>>
>>12105494
They would just buy drugs with them so better not
>>
>>12105501
>implying wikipedia isn't buying drugs
>>
>>12105501
At least he probably wont rape a kid
>>
File: file.png (1.82 MB, 1920x1080)
1.82 MB
1.82 MB PNG
BREAKING NEWS: OP is a faggot
>>
>Wikipedia is alright
all right*
>>
>>12105452
>like op
You are not fooling anyone Samefag op, nigger
>>
>>12105501
A 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
>>
>>12105378
Do you know how enormous their endowment is? They could function off of it forever
>>
>>12105494
Why should I care about homeless people?
>>
>>12105786
Not 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.
>>
>>12105786
Homeless people should be killed
>>
>>12105378
Good goy

>>12105455
I 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.
>>
>>12105843
Everyone is biased, nigger. You're just mad they won't fund your biases.
>>
File: 1370271120505.jpg (294 KB, 600x600)
294 KB
294 KB JPG
>>12105378
>>
>>12105501
Them 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.)
>>
>>12105455
Try turning off uBlockOrigin (yes, you're using uBlock, faggot) on Wikipedia versus a regular website, you'll see why very quickly.
>>
>>12105854
You 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 liar
Sounds like projection to me.
>>
>>12105882
Everyone lies, nigger. Its a necessary triat for survival. You're just being a pathetic moralist.
>>
>>12105888
And you just made it weird now.
>>
File: 1597955512166.jpg (72 KB, 750x903)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>12105378
I 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.
>>
>>12105888
So 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?
>>
>>12105942
Yes.
>>
>>12105942
Evola 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.
>>
>>12105942
Have you not read Sorel? Mythology is a primary tool of fascism.
>>
>>12105453
then what is it? you hate information thats easily accessible to the masses?
>>
>>12105953
Sort of shitty, isn’t it?
>>12105958
Yes, 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.
>>
>>12105501
Why 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.
>>
>>12105378
faggot
>>
>>12105378
>auscuck
not surprised
>>
>>12105378
it has its good and bad. but the funniest thing about it is 99% of its detractors read their history from it.
>>
File: 1621727152580.gif (2.31 MB, 200x200)
2.31 MB
2.31 MB GIF
>>12105452
Reminder 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?

>>12105887
It is when your biased towards bullshit buddy. At the very least they shouldn't pretend to be neutral because they obviously are not.

>>12105958
No, 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.
>>
>>12106763
True =/= 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.
>>
>>12106730
t. 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. - Evola
This 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.
>>
>>12106896
Yeah sure buddy
>>
Which wiki topics interest you so much that you prefer it to other sources, Aussie anon?
>>
>>12106940
You 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.
>>
>>12105942
Yes.
Sartre is a retard, but he pointed out the "debate me bro" strategy quite brilliantly.>>12105953
>>
>>12105378
104 AUD
What 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.org
If 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 favorites
No one actually does this. you don't do this. Cut the bullshit.
>>
>>12107546
>creativecommons.org
if it isn't this one this one at least gives very close results, thanks anon
>>
>>12106896
>we communists
>>
>>12105378
You 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
>>
>>12107879
based
>>
>>12107879
The 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
>>12105985
If 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
>>12107879
wikipedia 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 US

So in between the war betwin propaganda fags somebody out there that can write the facts.
>>
>>12105985
The is no "relief" because the drugs wear off fast.
>>
>>12107960
also, 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=568366919
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dvorak_keyboard_layout&oldid=569721792#Comparison_of_the_QWERTY_and_Dvorak_layouts
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MyMathLab&oldid=568980180#Features
Lots 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=273702
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy&oldid=336610238
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thirty_Years%27_War&oldid=959313
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&oldid=1002786\
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Revolution&oldid=4442495
This 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.
>>
>>12108040
Teachers tell students not to use wikipedia since they want you to find proper sources.
>>
>>12105378
>Australian
imagine my shock
>>
>>12105378
Jimmy Wales is very wealthy after selling Wikia/Fandom. Let him fund it himself. Never donating to that smug fuck.
>>
>>12105378
For Jews and shitlibs, yes.
>>
>>12105378
Kikepedia 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
>>12108169
I miss the before times "da Jews" was not the answer to everything even outside of /pol/.
>>
File: australian classic.jpg (361 KB, 1000x668)
361 KB
361 KB JPG
>>12105378
>>
>>12106730
Read 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 opinion
Wikipedia is rightist
>>
>>12106741
t. election tourist
>>
>>12105378
Wikipedia is AWESOME if you're a Jew who hates whites and wants them all dead.
>>
>>12108389
You don’t really believe this do you?
>>
>>12108473
Nope, 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.
>>
>>12108510
I assume their definition of it being rightist is it not lying about rightists enough
I know a liberal journalist who considers Reddit a far right website
These people are mentally ill
>>
>>12105452
>Loves Wikipedia
I have a library card and an IQ over room temperature. I bet you have a funko pop collection.
>>
>>12109222
Leave my funko pops out of this!
I'm trans btw
>>
>>12108253
>Globalism bad
>Capitalism bad
Fuck off, retard.
>>
>>12108510
>>12108643
Look at any of their pages about communism, socialism, or socialist countries. Then look at what they say about capitalist economics.
>>
>>12108389
>>12109806
No, you're both retarded political extremists that wikipedia paints you both in bad light. That's really all it is.
>>
>>12109818
I'm not really classifiable.
>>
>>12105378
Yes 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.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.