What I was trying to imply was “if anything” is going to suffer their bias, Marxism is on their unlikelihood list.
Hahahaha ah yes the website with a massive nazi problem is going to be unbiased against Marxists, okay buddy
Did you even read your first linked article? It echoes what I’m saying now.
Dude, it's Wikipedia... How are you not getting it? I linked you a Wikipedia article about bias on Wikipedia as a joke
So then what’s the basis for the second article? That people editing wikipedia pages are in an edit war over the atrocities of the nazis? That it’s longterm and ordained by wikipedia themselves? Elaborate.
The basis for the second article is that there is thousands of Nazis on Wikipedia, seemingly writing barely-challenged lies. The point of the second article is that Wikipedia has a nazi problem, which leads to it having a right-wing bias.
I don't believe it's some sinister plot by Wikipedia, but it is a fact that it is an issue wikipedia has. It is the downside to the "everyone is an editor" format which the site makes use of
The two things just seem to undermine each other, but that aside, I hope the other sources will do, whatever your criteria is for a good source.
You were being critiqued for use of Wikipedia, you defended Wikipedia as being neutral, I pointed out how it wasn't. That is the crux of the discussion you and I have been having. I am not embroiled in a larger one about the DPRK or whatever. Wikipedia sucks as a source and now you know, hopefully that'll keep you from using dogshit source material some other time
You say that like I didn’t use other places as sources as well.
What I was trying to imply was “if anything” is going to suffer their bias, Marxism is on their unlikelihood list.
Hahahaha ah yes the website with a massive nazi problem is going to be unbiased against Marxists, okay buddy
Did you even read your first linked article? It echoes what I’m saying now.
Dude, it's Wikipedia... How are you not getting it? I linked you a Wikipedia article about bias on Wikipedia as a joke
So then what’s the basis for the second article? That people editing wikipedia pages are in an edit war over the atrocities of the nazis? That it’s longterm and ordained by wikipedia themselves? Elaborate.
The basis for the second article is that there is thousands of Nazis on Wikipedia, seemingly writing barely-challenged lies. The point of the second article is that Wikipedia has a nazi problem, which leads to it having a right-wing bias.
I don't believe it's some sinister plot by Wikipedia, but it is a fact that it is an issue wikipedia has. It is the downside to the "everyone is an editor" format which the site makes use of
The two things just seem to undermine each other, but that aside, I hope the other sources will do, whatever your criteria is for a good source.
You were being critiqued for use of Wikipedia, you defended Wikipedia as being neutral, I pointed out how it wasn't. That is the crux of the discussion you and I have been having. I am not embroiled in a larger one about the DPRK or whatever. Wikipedia sucks as a source and now you know, hopefully that'll keep you from using dogshit source material some other time
You say that like I didn’t use other places as sources as well.