Wikipedia not based on facts.

Cleffy

Wikipedia just showed they are not based on fact but a consensus of opinion. They blacklisted the Epoch Times as a source due to their coverage on China and Russian Collusion. This is despite most of the facts the Epoch Times presented on Russian Collusion being correct that was then supported by the Mueller Report and Horowitz IG Report. Out of all the media outlets reporting on the issue, they stood out as being the most correct. 

Adamantine

Yeah well duh.

Wikipedia is unreliable enough when its NOT about political issues.

Barrikor

Cleffy said:

Out of all the media outlets reporting on the issue, they stood out as being the most correct. 

Saying the truth is the quickest way to make enemies.

If they didn't report on Hong Kong, they wouldn't have been targeted there for being "biased". Same thing with Trump. (since we're on the subject) The real reason Trump's being impeached right now is that he was uncovering the politicians' money schemes, if he just spent his time starting 2 or 3 wars like a normal president he wouldn't have this problem.

On Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Stack Overflow, etc, anyone with a non-standard opinion gets attacked by the hate-mob; the best strategy right now is to lay-low and wait until the hate-mob is focused on something else. I.e: Just wait a while and use Epoch Times as a source in 6 months from now, no one on Wikipedia will notice.

But hey, in the meantime, at least Wiki's got quality articles on things that matter, i.e:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

johndavid14

Roku Activation Link

 Activating Roku Device is simple and easier. You need an activation code for every Roku player to activate it.

 Steps for Roku Activation link

• Sign-in into your Roku account or create it.
• Now, you'll get a link code at the Player section.
• Go to Roku.com/link URL via browser and Enter the code.
• Now, the Roku device is activated.

immoralthang

I look at Wikipedia as a gateway of sorts to a topic that I am interested in but am admittedly ignorant. It serves a purpose but it's always been unreliable in terms of hard facts. 

Quizzical

There are people who use Wikipedia as a source for current political news?  Even many supposedly respectable media sources seem to have given up on caring if a story is true, so long as it fits their preconceived biases as to what they'd like to happen and they have some anonymous source who claims that it's true.

What Wikipedia is good for is looking up facts that are not in dispute and that no one has a motivation to lie about.  I'd expect a good amount of information on a modern politician to be at minimum biased, but things like his date of birth, which state or district he represents, and the results of elections he has run in are probably going to be correct.

jasonmathew

How To Activate Roku?

It’s not a tough task to activate Roku. Connect the necessary hardware, activate the Network. The software update is automatic. To link your device to the Roku account, use the page   Roku.com/link. Go to the store to activate your favorite channels.

wesleywalker

Not based on facts. So you need to make deeper research when you are going to write your papers. Visit these services ewriters.pro to get some help.

Adamantine

Yeesh. Three advertisement postings in a nine posting thread ? Yuck.

Malachi22

Wikipedia is good for getting a basic understanding of a subject, but it's always better to research at a library. Most have resources to search Journals and newspapers too

Cleffy

A fact is proven through experimentation and evidence. A consensus of opinion are the majority holding a particular opinion regardless of experimentation and evidence. For instance during Thanksgiving Trump spent it with troops. If you went based on the consensus of opinion he spent it golfing at Mar-A-Lago.

geeksquad631

Yes, you are right Wikipedia not based on facts but Wikipedia good for knowledge.

https://getgeek.info/how-to-contact-best-buy-geek-squad/

 

Amathe

It's a starting point for information on a subject.

And it's not appropriate to some inquiries. If I am prescribed a medication and need to know about drug interactions, I'm not going to check wikipedia.

If it matters, you verify any sources cited and do deeper research. 

geeksquad631

Nice information provided by you, it really helped me to understand this topic.
SMF File Extension

Wizardry

Wikipedia is often a reliable source but not it's not 100% accurate.How they operate their business is also going to be hit n miss.

Do i think those governments are doing cover ups,100% most certainly,no more than my distaste for my Canadian government.

$$$$<<<that runs the world,people not working don't make governments money.People on social assistance don't make the government money.No money no weapons of war for Putin and the rest.

If a government admits a pandemic they then are sort of required to aid it's people,BILLIONS,trillions of dollars every day are at play then.

In the end we are going to pay severely for this,just like how they implemented the whole taxes idea because of the war.Governments are going to use this pandemic as a means to push various agenda,example Trump and his push against foreign immigrants.Right this minute Trump is trying to militarize our Canada US border.It is already spreading like WILDFIRE,so how is militarizing the border going to stop this now?

Bottom line,governments don't get into power because they have common sense,they get into power through corruption,money,powerful allies like unions ,lobbyists etc etc.

ArmanoS

Yes, this is how bro society works, it doesn’t really honor what it really is, but what opinion leaders or ruling leaders, groups think are right. As for education, I often use the helpers sites to resist the influence of social science.

Flharfh

Wikipedia is fine for a basic summary of an uncontroversial topic. But for any contemporary social, religious, or political issue, it's disastrously bad. Not only can anyone edit the articles, the more senior editors have their own biases and ideological agendas. 

KingNaid

Which entries? Can you be more specific.

Seems this one is true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorm_the_Old#/media/File:Royal_coat_of_arms_of_Denmark.svg

http://kongehuset.dk/en/the-monarchy-in-denmark/the-royal-symbols/the-royal-coat-of-arms

brianwil2727

Quizzical said:

There are people who use Wikipedia as a source for current political news?  Even many supposedly respectable media sources seem to have given up on caring if a story is true, so long as it fits their preconceived biases as to what they'd like to happen and they have some anonymous source who claims that it's true.

What Wikipedia is good for is looking up facts that are not in dispute and that no one has a motivation to lie about.  I'd expect a good amount of information on a modern politician to be at bitcoin futures liquidity report minimum biased, but things like his date of birth, which state or district he represents, and the results of elections he has run in are probably going to be correct. 

thanks this was 

nicolleemeyer

Yeah, that's true. Sometimes you can edit any wiki article you want 

plyash

Many people dream of a https://onlinefreelancejobs.net/mechanical-engineering-job/ mechanical engineering career. These professionals design individual component parts for larger computer and electronics assemblies. Some of the types of products that they design include discrete semiconductors, integrated circuits, circuit boards, processors, and storage media. They also design factories and industrial processes, and they may even design robotics. However, this job is not for everyone. You should know the basics of mechanical engineering and how to get started. If you think that this job is right for you, read on to learn more.

Adamantine

I wouldnt waste time on Wikipedia, unless you enjoy getting your carefully researched and written texts by some dumbass who has a lot more admin rights and thinks pages about games shouldnt actually inform about the game in question.

Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard:_Saga_of_Heroes

Shitton of information nobody by company executives care about and written in a way that bores any regular person completely out of their mind.

Then a section "gameplay" which is completely generic and vague and cannot point out a single thing that was actually unique to Vanguard. Let alone give any impression about how the gameplay actually was or anythins.

Really, this whole page should be replaced by a single sentence:

Mostly harmless.

At least that would be funny.

upscalevalley001

Wikipedia is a collaborative online encyclopedia that is based on the principle of open editing, meaning that anyone can contribute to and edit its articles. As a result, Wikipedia articles may contain a mix of factual and inaccurate information. Wikipedia does have policies in place to ensure that its articles are verifiable and based on reliable sources, and the community of Wikipedia editors works to maintain the accuracy and quality of the content on the site. However, because Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone, it is important to be cautious when using it as a source of information and to verify the accuracy of the information provided by checking other reliable sources. It is always a good idea to cross-reference information from multiple sources to get a well-rounded understanding of a topic.

Hikikomorigamer2007

No shit. I mean it's not the most credible source, but it does get some things right. 

spectrala

Well, if Wikipedia were a judge on a reality show, it seems like they'd be the Simon Cowell of fact-checking! Maybe they're just trying to keep it spicy in the information world. Who knew truth could be such a controversial contestant?