Can you really ever trust one? All of them have an agenda to push, no exceptions. If that agenda aligns with your's, you've found an echo chamber for reinforcement. If not, perhaps you can learn of alternative viewpoints to an identical issue and maybe agree with some but not all of them. Things like wikis are supposed to be open to all opinions on a subject, but like everything good, someone will take it to corrupt.
No exceptions you say? Ah yes, the wiki agendas. I sure love the propaganda of the stardew valley wiki. Super echo chambery and clearly deep state politics
Glad to help heh
You're describing literally every discourse community and mode of communication. What you said applies to every book, newspaper, journal, website, forum, wiki, etc. There always some bias in some way. It's how it works. Humans will be humans. It's up to the individual to process information and discern what to think
Yep
"Never trust other people," they say. I'm not sure I shpypd believe them, though.
So, don't trust the entire internet, then?
Pretty much. Take it all with a grain of salt
You're not using that phrase correctly. "Take it with a grain of salt" means not to commit to the knowledge until it's verified else where or at least applying basic skepticism to it.
Wikipedia is a fairly safe place to start with research, but I would never really believe it for current event politics or adjacent topics.
Conservapedia is an engineered echo chamber that exists because Wikipedia kicked their founders out for vandalism. It only gives credibility to Wikipedia.
Exactly, Wikipedia has all sorts of processes and policies around making articles high quality. That includes trying to remove as much ideologically driven material as possible. This would be deleted in seconds (maybe literally).
still a wiki
Might as well say "never trust a website"
Can you really ever trust one? All of them have an agenda to push, no exceptions. If that agenda aligns with your's, you've found an echo chamber for reinforcement. If not, perhaps you can learn of alternative viewpoints to an identical issue and maybe agree with some but not all of them. Things like wikis are supposed to be open to all opinions on a subject, but like everything good, someone will take it to corrupt.
No exceptions you say? Ah yes, the wiki agendas. I sure love the propaganda of the stardew valley wiki. Super echo chambery and clearly deep state politics
Glad to help heh
You're describing literally every discourse community and mode of communication. What you said applies to every book, newspaper, journal, website, forum, wiki, etc. There always some bias in some way. It's how it works. Humans will be humans. It's up to the individual to process information and discern what to think
Yep
"Never trust other people," they say. I'm not sure I shpypd believe them, though.
So, don't trust the entire internet, then?
Pretty much. Take it all with a grain of salt
You're not using that phrase correctly. "Take it with a grain of salt" means not to commit to the knowledge until it's verified else where or at least applying basic skepticism to it.
Wikipedia is a fairly safe place to start with research, but I would never really believe it for current event politics or adjacent topics.
Conservapedia is an engineered echo chamber that exists because Wikipedia kicked their founders out for vandalism. It only gives credibility to Wikipedia.
Exactly, Wikipedia has all sorts of processes and policies around making articles high quality. That includes trying to remove as much ideologically driven material as possible. This would be deleted in seconds (maybe literally).