International

Ответить в тред Ответить в тред
English Wikipedia Anonymous  13/01/21 Срд 01:03:43 731181
изображение.png 56Кб, 964x423
964x423
изображение.png 41Кб, 762x498
762x498
изображение.png 81Кб, 960x622
960x622
Why is English part of Wikipedia this bad? I read the Talk page. So, they grab all the nonsense they can find in media and put it in the first paragraph to discredit a platform. I'm not a Parler user. Heard about it being destroyed by Google, Apple, and Amazon on Soloviev LIVE and became curious. The service launched two years ago somehow became part of the history of antisemitism. I don't want to know what Russia-related articles look like.
What do you use instead for English? Is there any other website in English with lots of articles like Wikipedia?
Anonymous  13/01/21 Срд 01:25:51 731212
>>73118 (OP)
Well, I guess you only relate your post to the political entries of Wikipedia, right? I mean other parts about philosophy or mathematics are not bad, right? An alternative is Metapedia (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), which comes from another political standpoint, but it mainly concentrates on politics and the humanities. It also has far less articles than Wikipedia. I don't think there is any alternative to Wikipedia that is comparable in siza.
Anonymous  13/01/21 Срд 10:55:45 731333
>>73121
> which comes from another political standpoint
This is the problem. Ones are anti-white supremacists, and the others are anti-"anti-white supremacists" (and both are anti-Russia and anti-Chinese of course, using "reliable sourcing" to substantiate their hate), and it's totally American thing as I see it, like everything still spins around white supremacy and colonialism there. I was told to see English as an international language, and I know there is a billion speakers and more than one country officially using it, but it turns out the content in English is not so international but US-centric. And I understand this particular service Parler intended for Americans, so it's expected, but it's this way everywhere you look.
You might think I'm naive, but I expected from people editing an online encyclopedia not to push their agenda, but gather knowledge. And they clearly do push their agenda, they choose most biased sources, put all the compiled filth in the first paragraph, lock the page and dismiss any disagreements.
Thank you for your suggestion, so I'll look more into this website because I've never heard about it before.
> I mean other parts about philosophy or mathematics are not bad, right?
Yes, but I feel like I wouldn't want my child to visit English Wikipedia without my supervision for me to tell him or her why certain things are put there and that it's not objective truth but citing American media which may or may not report reality distorted or say blatant lies pushing their misanthropic agenda. It's really scary if you look into how children are being used in anti-state protests in Russia (for what those who do it are called political pedophiles, Navalny for example). They are being told to hate their country, hate their government, distrust the police, see their closest ones as retrogrades who don't see "the truth", and sure thing it affects their mental health negatively. That's being done with citing media like RFE/RL and BBC in particular.
Anonymous  13/01/21 Срд 12:44:08 731404
What do you guys think about wikispooks? I just found about it today.
Anonymous  13/01/21 Срд 12:45:17 731415
>>73133
Well, luckily Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source nowadays. For example you can't use it as a source for your seminar paper in uni. Although this might change in the future as our attention shifts from real encyclopedias which are published in book form to internet encyclopedias. If you look closely at Wikipedia, you will notice that many articles lack heavily in sources. As you said, mainstream opinions and "facts" aren't challenged and thus aren't backed up by sources. Wikipedia is just another tool of the West to politically indoctrinate it's citizens, so yeah it's heavily anti-chinese and anti-russian.
Anonymous  13/01/21 Срд 12:45:35 731426
Anonymous  13/01/21 Срд 12:56:21 731457
>>73142
pro-conspiracy theory wikipedia, but it doesn't really have any truly controversial articles.
Настройки X
Ответить в тред X
15000
Макс объем: 40Mб, макс кол-во файлов: 4
Кликни/брось файл/ctrl-v
Стикеры X
Избранное / Топ тредов