Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information
Yeah if you’re looking up wood joints and math theorems. Not if you’re trying to learn anything about politics or history that ties into the interests of the systems and institutions that filter the media allowed as valid citations.
You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy
Do they ban the New York Times because they lied the country into every war it’s been in since McKinley?
Someone once put together a book titled, “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein.” Einstein dismissed the book with the quip, “Why one hundred? If I were really wrong, they’d only need one.”
Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.
You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?
You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:
Idk man, this page has over 401 citations from various sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China?wprov=sfla1
Edit: This also has a lot of citations ns from various sources too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_China?wprov=sfla1
Ah yes. Libopedia the pinnicle of (western) truth!
Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information, most especially do to the international collaboration efforts on it.
You can’t just dismiss a source on the basis that you don’t like it. You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy
Yeah if you’re looking up wood joints and math theorems. Not if you’re trying to learn anything about politics or history that ties into the interests of the systems and institutions that filter the media allowed as valid citations.
Do they ban the New York Times because they lied the country into every war it’s been in since McKinley?
The 400 citations in question:
[1] Victims of Communism Memorial Association
[2] Burger Eagle Freedom Institute
[3] China Freedom NGO (Washington DC)
[4-399] Western State Television Station (retrieved in 2020)
[400] Literally the CIA
The article editors in question:
u/USA_STEM_Edgelord_USA_1990
u/TotallyNotAFed69
u/WhiteCisManInHis30s
Good job outing yourself as someone who can only read up to 3 lines before they have to vomit bullshit onto the internet.
And you’ve read zero of them.
Sounds like cope
Someone once put together a book titled, “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein.” Einstein dismissed the book with the quip, “Why one hundred? If I were really wrong, they’d only need one.”
Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.
You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?
You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:
https://practicalpie.com/fallacy-of-composition/
No, I’m simply calling out a lazy gish gallop. It’s the same in both cases.
How many sources are listed on the Wikipedia page for Christianity? If I accept your logic as valid, it seems I’ll have to convert.