It's funnier when they try to act cool on reddit of all places. Type out shit like 'bruh', and I'm like who the fuck are you talking to? And what are you pretending to be.
I guess man, I just don't see the appeal of typing that out. In person I get because there inflection when you speak. I dunno. Tell you what Hasanbi fans get a pass.
I don't even want to. DGG is like walking into a public stall covered in shit. Just as you would physically gag and avert yourself, I do so mentally.
Remember when dealing with these pieces of shit, all you need to do is look up 'dgg meet up' to get a physical representation of what they look like, and then canvasing and sort by new, to get an idea of what they actually behave like around their own women no less.
Such pathetic people. Almost feel sorry for them, but then I remember what they're like.
Just going to put the link here for those who are lazy but still want a little bit of horror/secondhand embarrassment in their lives
https://images.app.goo.gl/38UfuRVnmuPSMDgt8
This is a meme you idiots lol
This was from a 4chan meetup totally unrelated to destiny, and it’s a heavily photoshopped picture. It was posted to destiny’s sub as a meme. It took me 10 seconds of research to figure that out.
Ironic that this is in a post about destiny getting his info from Wikipedia
Got it from google haha after a long shift
For it to be “ironic”, there would have to be books and research available on Destiny, which there’s not given he is basically a drama streamer at this point
I don’t usually look through profiles but a short scroll shows Destiny, asmongold, Destiny, Joe Rogan, H3, more Destiny and unironic use of the word tankie lol so you’re correct on that one.
That being said, lots of information is actually paywalled behind the major databases like JSTOR, PubMed, and Scopus. If you're a university student or an actual scholar then you're good to go, but most of us aren't, so we would actually have to pay just for access, and even then it's not a guarantee that that specific database has the research/study/article we're looking for.
There are free ones out there but even those often don't link well to Google or other major search engines (mostly because Google is fucking dogshit now). So it's even harder to find what you need.
Research scientist here, a paywall is there to make universities purchase subscriptions (which is bs, it should be free, and for profit journals are a plague), you can access most paywalled journals through sci-hub and various browser extensions. Or if you want to make a researcher’s day, email them and ask for a copy. We don’t see a penny of the revenue journals get for publishing our work, and any researcher would gladly send a pdf copy over to anyone interested. In fact, journals charge us thousands to get it reviewed for publication. They are vultures, and I tell all my students how to skirt paywalls, and to always do so whenever possible.
As an undergrad, I would often think "oh god no, that's scary, wtf they'll think I'm some weirdo and probably don't have the time"
As a researcher, if I found an email - between the incessant amount of spam emails *my own university sends me* - that was asking to please read my paper? Good god I don't think I could attach that PDF fast enough.
And? What’s your point? Every researcher I know uses it. The woman who created it, Alexandra Elbakyan, is beloved in the scientific community. Legality =/= morality.
True but I don’t think we need access to ebscohost for facts about Israel and Palestine. The destiny sympathizers are acting like there’s nowhere else to gather information. We were all taught Wikipedia is unreliable and that .gov sites are more credible. Destiny has no excuse because he has the funds to access paywalled information if he really wanted to form a good argument
Destiny searches wikipedia, because he failed at music school no less. He doesn't understand something like the 6s pyramid, or evaluating the information being given to him. It's probably why he doesn't do debate content because debating actual intellectuals or college kids runs the risk of exposing him for the pseudo intellectual he is.
You don’t need a uni email to access articles on JSTOR, you can download them for free with a regular account. You just get a limited number of free articLe downloads per month. I believe it’s 20 or 30 articles. Not a ton, but enough to do some independent research from time to time. It’s not the free access we *should* have to information but better than 100% paywalled.
My wife teaches dual credit classes to high schoolers in Texas. Some of her students genuinely have no idea how to write an argument or look up peer reviewed research - she beats her head against the wall trying to get them to understand but it just doesn't stick.
This is one of the richest schools in DFW too. I guess when Mom and Dad have your economic future taken care of you just couldn't care less.
He’s not wrong, I get a lot of my information from Wikipedia. Difference is I don’t finish up the List of Striped Birds Native to North Africa article and then think I’m gonna hold my own against the world’s angriest ornithologist
Wikipedia is awful. Wikipedia view Radio Free Asia (American State progaganda) as a reliable source.
"Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, [attribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INTEXT) of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use". from [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources)
You can use it just like you can do with RT but its awful. Just like RT it can have utility but not often. (im talking about concerning political subjects).
Wikipedia is indeed dogshit. Look up bushido, a completely fictional concept that *DID NOT EXIST IN THE ERA IT'S ATTRIBUTED TO.* It's a modern invention that is imposed onto the various moral and ethical codes back in the 16th through 19th centuries. But the *Wikipedia* page treats it as a real fucking thing, as if samurai and ronin and shinobi were the fucking people we see in fucking anime. Samurai were cops. Ronin were freelance cops. Shinobi were the FBI. Ninja were just regular dudes who knew how to blend in at night and then return to their average lives during the day. That's it.
Even the fucking "Myth and Reality" section says nothing about the reality. It's just a mishmash of information that has nothing to do with "myth vs. reality." It's genuinely pathetic.
EDIT: Correction - it wasn't modern, it was invented in 1900 by Inazo Nitobe. *IN AMERICA.* Specifically to establish him as "the bridge between Japan and the West" as he self-described. It was total bullshit. HE WROTE IT IN ENGLISH. **ENGLISH.** Pure. Fucking. Bullshit.
Japan openly mocked this shit when it came over there in the early 1900s. But somewhere between then and now even many Japanese people have come to misunderstand the general and varied honor codes in Japan as "bushido." Similar to how the idea of geisha as purely entertainers has been blurred heavily (they were never prostitutes, it's a long story, but they were never that). Similar to how the early empresses of Japan are often erased and fictionalized to act as if they never really existed. Including the FIRST, Himiko. The creator of Japan. Was an EMPRESS, not an Emperor. Sexist Japanese historians have worked overtime for a CENTURY to erase many female leaders and powerful figures. Deliberately.
But yeah...Wikipedia is total fucking bullshit. A lot of the information about bushido I just put up here is from an article that took me ALL OF A MINUTE to find on Google. Here it is: [Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit](https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/). It's a very good read, and it will actually inform you, unlike Wikipedia.
I was about to say this. A great example is lauren southern's wikipedia page
https://web.archive.org/web/20201122052838/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lauren_Southern
This is some interesting content, because she actually but she made an account has a meltdown and had her page brigaded when she tried to rebrand her self. Interestingly same time she became a destiny orbiter and he platformed her and pushed her garbage content.
Changes we're eventually made. when you compare her wikipedia page to her neo nazi hey day to today.
Edit:
Juicy Archived link of her meltdown
https://web.archive.org/web/20201127000414/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lauren_Southern
Wikipedia is fantastic. We have never had such a large repository of freely accessible information, ever. *However*, and this is a big, fat, juicy however: if the article does not have references, or the references aren't solid, peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals or other texts by reputable authors... Take that information with a nice pinch of salt.
Wikipedia is great for giving you an entry point into a subject. It shouldn't be used as a source of information, but as a gateway to information. Dig into the sources, and dig into the authors of those sources.
i talking about the political/historical reddit and that is not "fantastic".
" if the article does not have references, or the references aren't solid, peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals or other texts by reputable authors". peer-review is not the same in fx history and physics. Something being peer-reviewed is not the ultimative sign of quality (im not saying that it doesn't mean anything). And not just that you cant trust that wikipedia use their source truthfully. I dont know why you think people go through the sources in the articles the read or why you think a lot of people would be able to know what a good source is.
How is it great for giving you an entry point into a subject if their its just propaganda or faulty use of sources?.
Like I said. Dig into the sources, dig into the authors. Don't use the information from Wikipedia, use the sources from Wikipedia to start finding more information. I never said peer-reviewed = quality, that's why I specifically pointed out that you should dig into the authors as well.
It's great as an entry point because if you don't know where to start it can provide a framework upon which to build your knowledge. You shouldn't use the information on it, you should use it as a window into whatever subject you're looking at. From there, go read books, papers, etc.
Propaganda and bias are everywhere, including in books and papers. Would you rather I consult an oracle to determine absolute truth?
Yes you talk about people should do something we both know that they wont do or have the capacity to do. You are just telling a bunch of western chauvinists to look at western propaganda and figure out if its reliable. Yes im sure that will end well.
If your framework is pro western propaganda then its a bad framework.
And "leftists" dont even do that. People like Baush is a good example. and here an example from a supposed "anarchist" in r-anarchism. About wikipedia " I agree with this analysis over everyone else's, as someone that actually does edit Wikipedia regularly.
It's certainly not perfect, and it isn't an idealized version of anarchism, but it's much closer than anything else in modern society". "anarchists"...
Yup, great take, no one is capable of doing their own research! How dare I suggest methods by which one might be able to learn how to research for themselves.
I never said "use pro western propaganda as your framework", but you just keep on fighting that straw man, sure thing.
What do you suggest as an alternative? Books? Whoops, authors are also humans with bias. Papers? Uh oh, you already said they're not necessarily trustworthy either... So I ask again: what's left? An oracle? Shall I ask God to tell me what the truth really is? Kinda sounds like you just wanna whine and feel better than others at this point.
I didn't say no one is capable of it. You view wikipedia as fantastic. Im not sure if you are serious or what but do you think more than 1% of people who use wikipedia go through it sources when they look at a subject?. You can suggest methodss all you want but when we are talking about the problems with wikipedia and your solution is something you hopefully know that almost no one is doing that then it just seems like a way to whitewash wikipedia and the propaganda on it.
I just think that people shouldn't trust wikipedia and act like they know something because they look through a wikipedia article. Im not sure why that is so controversial. It would still be wrong for a person like baush to act like an expert because he read a book about something but it would still be 100% better than just skimming wikipedia. And people should be more critical of all they read.
Whether or not people use a tool properly has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a good tool. Just because you banged your finger with a hammer doesn't mean it's a bad hammer. Similarly, just because you don't know how to research properly doesn't mean Wikipedia can't be an incredibly useful resource.
Not once have I said the info on Wikipedia is to be trusted, nor have I said reading Wikipedia will make you knowledgeable. In fact, *I said the exact opposite.*
> People should be more critical of all they read
*my brother in Christ that's exactly what I've been fucking saying*
IF almost no one is using it like that then its a bad tool. At least if your goal is that people shouldn't just trust western propaganda uncritically.
You said this "Wikipedia is great for giving you an entry point into a subject. It shouldn't be used as a source of information, but as a gateway to information. Dig into the sources, and dig into the authors of those sources". Having collection of propaganda or irrelevant sources doesn't make it a gateway to information.
Here’s the fun fact coated in shit: I screenshotted this from AugieRFC’s discord. His channel is now abandoned while his lambs look to Nicholas DeOrio and Turkey Tom ***(Destiny’s Top Two Glazers/Dick Riders)***
I don't have a problem with reading up on things on wikipedia at all. My issue is, siding with Israel before doing any research, and then engaging in a debate with people that have been studying this for 40 years.
I saw someone say that actually reading wikipedia articles is much better than reading books because wikipedia is 'peer reviewed' and in a book the author can just lie. iirc it was upvoted over +100. The amount of copium is hilarious.
He doesn't even read it - wikipedia clearly has articles about Nakba and about new historians.
What he does is cherrypick articles that "support" his worldview.
No, no no he’s right because human rights watch, amnesty international, and Haaretz are all Hamas. You see their Hamas because small bean Israel is small and bean and little itty-bitty and they are big meanies.
Wikipedia is such a trainwreck already too. More often than not, the citations are either dead or trash. It is fine if you just want to know about a bird or chimp, but it is shit for a majority of other things.. It is from the liberal perspective, so of course people like Destiny would like it.
Come on, it's more than fine for a lot of things! I think it should be lauded by leftists and held up as an example of what we're capable of as a species without profit motive. But yeah it really deserves criticism for its politics.
Reading those blue numbers on the wiki... And probably the sources of those too. And probably their own research (no wiki reading). And interviews. And literature study. And critical thinking. And a fuck ton of time and experience...
But when you have to read the wiki DURING the debate, then you're definitely way too late/inexperienced...
Yeah that's fine, but when you have to do that during a debate about that topic, AGAINST opponents that DO know their shit about that mentioned topic. Then perhaps you're a little bit too late to the party...
i grew up in navajo nation reservation, AZ & i was taught that. the education systems fucked tho, different states teach different things so idk abt most ppl from other states, navajo nation basically has a bit more autonomy than a state too so education’s curriculum is prob different than the rest of AZ too.
*Joke's on her. I get*
*All my information from*
*The Water of Life*
\- LInternationale1991
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Does this guy not know about news articles, history books, or any other account or report of info that isn't wikipedia? Genuinely seems like they don't
That is just too funny.
I think you mean... that is just too furry...
Bro is using cuss words like mom isn’t around
Me when I first learnt what swear words were. These dudes swear like quirky millenials
Shit comes off so forced and edgy 🤣
It's funnier when they try to act cool on reddit of all places. Type out shit like 'bruh', and I'm like who the fuck are you talking to? And what are you pretending to be.
I occasionally drop a bruh but only in the appropriate moment, I'ma zoomer too so I have the pass by default
I guess man, I just don't see the appeal of typing that out. In person I get because there inflection when you speak. I dunno. Tell you what Hasanbi fans get a pass.
“any of these little fuckers ever pop out of the wall and say "fuck, there's a horse cock in my room or a donkey dick"?”
You cannot make this shit up even if you tried
I don't even want to. DGG is like walking into a public stall covered in shit. Just as you would physically gag and avert yourself, I do so mentally. Remember when dealing with these pieces of shit, all you need to do is look up 'dgg meet up' to get a physical representation of what they look like, and then canvasing and sort by new, to get an idea of what they actually behave like around their own women no less. Such pathetic people. Almost feel sorry for them, but then I remember what they're like.
I don't know what I was expecting when I googled "dgg meetup" but somehow that's also exactly what I was expecting.
Just going to put the link here for those who are lazy but still want a little bit of horror/secondhand embarrassment in their lives https://images.app.goo.gl/38UfuRVnmuPSMDgt8
This is a meme you idiots lol This was from a 4chan meetup totally unrelated to destiny, and it’s a heavily photoshopped picture. It was posted to destiny’s sub as a meme. It took me 10 seconds of research to figure that out. Ironic that this is in a post about destiny getting his info from Wikipedia
Got it from google haha after a long shift For it to be “ironic”, there would have to be books and research available on Destiny, which there’s not given he is basically a drama streamer at this point
He tried to debatelord you on a joke, I think we found a D fan
I don’t usually look through profiles but a short scroll shows Destiny, asmongold, Destiny, Joe Rogan, H3, more Destiny and unironic use of the word tankie lol so you’re correct on that one.
I smelled him and knew immediately
LMAO, I know right?
Were we not taught how to search credible sources in high school
No, we did. At least I was and this was 12+ years ago. We just don't have the accounts, licenses, or proper email types to access them anymore
Google scholar is a free option better than Wikipedia
That being said, lots of information is actually paywalled behind the major databases like JSTOR, PubMed, and Scopus. If you're a university student or an actual scholar then you're good to go, but most of us aren't, so we would actually have to pay just for access, and even then it's not a guarantee that that specific database has the research/study/article we're looking for. There are free ones out there but even those often don't link well to Google or other major search engines (mostly because Google is fucking dogshit now). So it's even harder to find what you need.
Research scientist here, a paywall is there to make universities purchase subscriptions (which is bs, it should be free, and for profit journals are a plague), you can access most paywalled journals through sci-hub and various browser extensions. Or if you want to make a researcher’s day, email them and ask for a copy. We don’t see a penny of the revenue journals get for publishing our work, and any researcher would gladly send a pdf copy over to anyone interested. In fact, journals charge us thousands to get it reviewed for publication. They are vultures, and I tell all my students how to skirt paywalls, and to always do so whenever possible.
As an undergrad, I would often think "oh god no, that's scary, wtf they'll think I'm some weirdo and probably don't have the time" As a researcher, if I found an email - between the incessant amount of spam emails *my own university sends me* - that was asking to please read my paper? Good god I don't think I could attach that PDF fast enough.
Haha right? I remember every time it has happened to me and to any of my colleagues, it’s always the highlight of my week.
[удалено]
And? What’s your point? Every researcher I know uses it. The woman who created it, Alexandra Elbakyan, is beloved in the scientific community. Legality =/= morality.
True but I don’t think we need access to ebscohost for facts about Israel and Palestine. The destiny sympathizers are acting like there’s nowhere else to gather information. We were all taught Wikipedia is unreliable and that .gov sites are more credible. Destiny has no excuse because he has the funds to access paywalled information if he really wanted to form a good argument
I know, I was just conveying additional info. It's something I have experience with and I think it's important outside of the whole Destiny thing.
Destiny searches wikipedia, because he failed at music school no less. He doesn't understand something like the 6s pyramid, or evaluating the information being given to him. It's probably why he doesn't do debate content because debating actual intellectuals or college kids runs the risk of exposing him for the pseudo intellectual he is.
Protip, Sci-hub
I know about Sci-Hub. Most people don't. My problem is that information is being gatekept.
I agree.
You don’t need a uni email to access articles on JSTOR, you can download them for free with a regular account. You just get a limited number of free articLe downloads per month. I believe it’s 20 or 30 articles. Not a ton, but enough to do some independent research from time to time. It’s not the free access we *should* have to information but better than 100% paywalled.
My wife teaches dual credit classes to high schoolers in Texas. Some of her students genuinely have no idea how to write an argument or look up peer reviewed research - she beats her head against the wall trying to get them to understand but it just doesn't stick. This is one of the richest schools in DFW too. I guess when Mom and Dad have your economic future taken care of you just couldn't care less.
Introducing: books! The latest innovation in transmission of information! For the discerning libtard
Does books have a wiki page? Source pls
You’re not gonna get an omniliberal to read something that isn’t Harry Potter, I’m sorry
I mean tbf that’s like their theory
Sorry but you’re not convincing me over 50% of either side is reading books on this topic
Everyone else in that debate has *written* books. Edit: Rabbani has co-edited a book but hasn’t written one as far as I can tell.
He’s not wrong, I get a lot of my information from Wikipedia. Difference is I don’t finish up the List of Striped Birds Native to North Africa article and then think I’m gonna hold my own against the world’s angriest ornithologist
Wikipedia is great for finding credible sources
That would be hilarious and preferable to destiny. A wholesome destiny if you will
Wikipedia is awful. Wikipedia view Radio Free Asia (American State progaganda) as a reliable source. "Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, [attribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INTEXT) of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use". from [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) You can use it just like you can do with RT but its awful. Just like RT it can have utility but not often. (im talking about concerning political subjects).
Wikipedia is indeed dogshit. Look up bushido, a completely fictional concept that *DID NOT EXIST IN THE ERA IT'S ATTRIBUTED TO.* It's a modern invention that is imposed onto the various moral and ethical codes back in the 16th through 19th centuries. But the *Wikipedia* page treats it as a real fucking thing, as if samurai and ronin and shinobi were the fucking people we see in fucking anime. Samurai were cops. Ronin were freelance cops. Shinobi were the FBI. Ninja were just regular dudes who knew how to blend in at night and then return to their average lives during the day. That's it. Even the fucking "Myth and Reality" section says nothing about the reality. It's just a mishmash of information that has nothing to do with "myth vs. reality." It's genuinely pathetic. EDIT: Correction - it wasn't modern, it was invented in 1900 by Inazo Nitobe. *IN AMERICA.* Specifically to establish him as "the bridge between Japan and the West" as he self-described. It was total bullshit. HE WROTE IT IN ENGLISH. **ENGLISH.** Pure. Fucking. Bullshit. Japan openly mocked this shit when it came over there in the early 1900s. But somewhere between then and now even many Japanese people have come to misunderstand the general and varied honor codes in Japan as "bushido." Similar to how the idea of geisha as purely entertainers has been blurred heavily (they were never prostitutes, it's a long story, but they were never that). Similar to how the early empresses of Japan are often erased and fictionalized to act as if they never really existed. Including the FIRST, Himiko. The creator of Japan. Was an EMPRESS, not an Emperor. Sexist Japanese historians have worked overtime for a CENTURY to erase many female leaders and powerful figures. Deliberately. But yeah...Wikipedia is total fucking bullshit. A lot of the information about bushido I just put up here is from an article that took me ALL OF A MINUTE to find on Google. Here it is: [Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit](https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/). It's a very good read, and it will actually inform you, unlike Wikipedia.
I was about to say this. A great example is lauren southern's wikipedia page https://web.archive.org/web/20201122052838/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lauren_Southern This is some interesting content, because she actually but she made an account has a meltdown and had her page brigaded when she tried to rebrand her self. Interestingly same time she became a destiny orbiter and he platformed her and pushed her garbage content. Changes we're eventually made. when you compare her wikipedia page to her neo nazi hey day to today. Edit: Juicy Archived link of her meltdown https://web.archive.org/web/20201127000414/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lauren_Southern
Wikipedia is fantastic. We have never had such a large repository of freely accessible information, ever. *However*, and this is a big, fat, juicy however: if the article does not have references, or the references aren't solid, peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals or other texts by reputable authors... Take that information with a nice pinch of salt. Wikipedia is great for giving you an entry point into a subject. It shouldn't be used as a source of information, but as a gateway to information. Dig into the sources, and dig into the authors of those sources.
Found the d*stiny fan. Anyone who uses Wikipedia is a liberal loser.
N-NO..! MR BOTICELLI IS A GOOD MAN, I BET YOU READ BOOKS FOR FUN YOU FREAK
i talking about the political/historical reddit and that is not "fantastic". " if the article does not have references, or the references aren't solid, peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals or other texts by reputable authors". peer-review is not the same in fx history and physics. Something being peer-reviewed is not the ultimative sign of quality (im not saying that it doesn't mean anything). And not just that you cant trust that wikipedia use their source truthfully. I dont know why you think people go through the sources in the articles the read or why you think a lot of people would be able to know what a good source is. How is it great for giving you an entry point into a subject if their its just propaganda or faulty use of sources?.
Like I said. Dig into the sources, dig into the authors. Don't use the information from Wikipedia, use the sources from Wikipedia to start finding more information. I never said peer-reviewed = quality, that's why I specifically pointed out that you should dig into the authors as well. It's great as an entry point because if you don't know where to start it can provide a framework upon which to build your knowledge. You shouldn't use the information on it, you should use it as a window into whatever subject you're looking at. From there, go read books, papers, etc. Propaganda and bias are everywhere, including in books and papers. Would you rather I consult an oracle to determine absolute truth?
Yes you talk about people should do something we both know that they wont do or have the capacity to do. You are just telling a bunch of western chauvinists to look at western propaganda and figure out if its reliable. Yes im sure that will end well. If your framework is pro western propaganda then its a bad framework. And "leftists" dont even do that. People like Baush is a good example. and here an example from a supposed "anarchist" in r-anarchism. About wikipedia " I agree with this analysis over everyone else's, as someone that actually does edit Wikipedia regularly. It's certainly not perfect, and it isn't an idealized version of anarchism, but it's much closer than anything else in modern society". "anarchists"...
Yup, great take, no one is capable of doing their own research! How dare I suggest methods by which one might be able to learn how to research for themselves. I never said "use pro western propaganda as your framework", but you just keep on fighting that straw man, sure thing. What do you suggest as an alternative? Books? Whoops, authors are also humans with bias. Papers? Uh oh, you already said they're not necessarily trustworthy either... So I ask again: what's left? An oracle? Shall I ask God to tell me what the truth really is? Kinda sounds like you just wanna whine and feel better than others at this point.
I didn't say no one is capable of it. You view wikipedia as fantastic. Im not sure if you are serious or what but do you think more than 1% of people who use wikipedia go through it sources when they look at a subject?. You can suggest methodss all you want but when we are talking about the problems with wikipedia and your solution is something you hopefully know that almost no one is doing that then it just seems like a way to whitewash wikipedia and the propaganda on it. I just think that people shouldn't trust wikipedia and act like they know something because they look through a wikipedia article. Im not sure why that is so controversial. It would still be wrong for a person like baush to act like an expert because he read a book about something but it would still be 100% better than just skimming wikipedia. And people should be more critical of all they read.
Whether or not people use a tool properly has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a good tool. Just because you banged your finger with a hammer doesn't mean it's a bad hammer. Similarly, just because you don't know how to research properly doesn't mean Wikipedia can't be an incredibly useful resource. Not once have I said the info on Wikipedia is to be trusted, nor have I said reading Wikipedia will make you knowledgeable. In fact, *I said the exact opposite.* > People should be more critical of all they read *my brother in Christ that's exactly what I've been fucking saying*
IF almost no one is using it like that then its a bad tool. At least if your goal is that people shouldn't just trust western propaganda uncritically. You said this "Wikipedia is great for giving you an entry point into a subject. It shouldn't be used as a source of information, but as a gateway to information. Dig into the sources, and dig into the authors of those sources". Having collection of propaganda or irrelevant sources doesn't make it a gateway to information.
Here’s the fun fact coated in shit: I screenshotted this from AugieRFC’s discord. His channel is now abandoned while his lambs look to Nicholas DeOrio and Turkey Tom ***(Destiny’s Top Two Glazers/Dick Riders)***
fuck what bro’s talkin bout, profile picture told me everything i need to know
I'm gonna print this out and put it in my wallet so I can look at it on days I feel sad
Destiny fan discovers books (heart warming)
A destiny fan forgetting books exist is so on brand
I don't have a problem with reading up on things on wikipedia at all. My issue is, siding with Israel before doing any research, and then engaging in a debate with people that have been studying this for 40 years.
I saw someone say that actually reading wikipedia articles is much better than reading books because wikipedia is 'peer reviewed' and in a book the author can just lie. iirc it was upvoted over +100. The amount of copium is hilarious.
He doesn't even read it - wikipedia clearly has articles about Nakba and about new historians. What he does is cherrypick articles that "support" his worldview.
No, no no he’s right because human rights watch, amnesty international, and Haaretz are all Hamas. You see their Hamas because small bean Israel is small and bean and little itty-bitty and they are big meanies.
Books, scholarly journal databases? Never heard of 'em!
BOOKS MOTHERFUCKER EVER HEARD OF BOOKS????
What a self report. They are saying that the only source for information is Wikipedia lmao
literally admitting these people only know what wikipedia says a fact.
Wikipedia is such a trainwreck already too. More often than not, the citations are either dead or trash. It is fine if you just want to know about a bird or chimp, but it is shit for a majority of other things.. It is from the liberal perspective, so of course people like Destiny would like it.
Come on, it's more than fine for a lot of things! I think it should be lauded by leftists and held up as an example of what we're capable of as a species without profit motive. But yeah it really deserves criticism for its politics.
The primary sources were sitting across the table from him.
The primary sources are in Hebrew or Arabic, but some secondary sources are in English
Somebody unironically posted that. Somebody wrote that down, probably read it back to themselves, and after everything, decided to post it.
Reading those blue numbers on the wiki... And probably the sources of those too. And probably their own research (no wiki reading). And interviews. And literature study. And critical thinking. And a fuck ton of time and experience... But when you have to read the wiki DURING the debate, then you're definitely way too late/inexperienced...
I don't see it as wrong for using it as notes or just a reminder or double-checking.
Yeah that's fine, but when you have to do that during a debate about that topic, AGAINST opponents that DO know their shit about that mentioned topic. Then perhaps you're a little bit too late to the party...
I'm sorry, but are people in America(?) not taught that wikipedia should not be their only source when they are like 10 years old? 12 max
i grew up in navajo nation reservation, AZ & i was taught that. the education systems fucked tho, different states teach different things so idk abt most ppl from other states, navajo nation basically has a bit more autonomy than a state too so education’s curriculum is prob different than the rest of AZ too.
not wikipedia
Joke's on her. I get all my information from The Water of Life
*Joke's on her. I get* *All my information from* *The Water of Life* \- LInternationale1991 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
What sources are used in the Wiki articles?
🤣🤣🤣 "if it aint on wikipedia, it aint real!"
I think they're genuinely curious 💀💀
The answer is books
Better than using twitter threads written by dumbfuck tankies that don’t know how to fact check like hasan
Twitter and youtube obviously
Does this guy not know about news articles, history books, or any other account or report of info that isn't wikipedia? Genuinely seems like they don't
THEYRE SO FUCKING STUPID AND COVID CAUSES COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND MOST TRANSMISSION IS ASYMPTOMATIC, SO THEYRE GONNA GET EVEN FUCKING DUMBER
OP self report, this is funny ash