0
0
1
So that conclusion can be pure asscovering with no reality beyond the paper it's filed on.
0
0
1
3
0
10
blood eagle enjoyer 
scathach@stereophonic.space
Wikipedia is about as untrustworthy as LLMs are, but at least it provides citations and history/talk context
4
0
9
salty seadog
salt@social.xenofem.mefr tho today's society is an order of magnitude more backwards, depraved, and degenerate than the so-called dark ages. our descendants will regard the middle ages as pleasant by comparison. science and capital are a cancer on the perfect system of monarchism/feudalism that worked for thousands of years.
1
0
3
2
0
6
Clair Sliwa New Yorks strongest rat
OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat@social.xenofem.me
1
0
2
1
0
1
Wikipedia's funding history is also fucking crazy: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wikipedia-is-a-source-of-political-propaganda/
2
1
7
Clair Sliwa New Yorks strongest rat
OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat@social.xenofem.me
2
0
0
Clair Sliwa New Yorks strongest rat
OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat@social.xenofem.me
0
0
0
1
0
1
blood eagle enjoyer
scathach@stereophonic.space
0
0
0
Clair Sliwa New Yorks strongest rat
OneRatOneVerySmallTrenchCoat@social.xenofem.me
1
0
1
Wikipedia was taken over by activists that made sure that every page on wikipedia is politically correct according to them. This is more than a decade ago.
Wikipedia was good for the first years than it was fast destroyed.
I would trust some LLM more than wikipedia.
I have blocket wikipedia from my browser.
1
0
3
Wikipedia is propaganda and not reliable information in any way.
0
0
1
blood eagle enjoyer
scathach@stereophonic.space
I got really autistic about the Rwandan genocide from a book I was required to read in uni a few years back, some of the stuff in the article straight up contradicts the sources it cites for a given piece of information
Wikipedia is still a great tool for finding actual resources to learn about a topic though imo
1
0
1
pepsi_man 
pepsi_man@poa.st
There are mysteries in this world.
Don't tell the Protestants. They think they have everything figured out.
0
0
0
No it is not a great tool for finding resources to learn about topics. Because nothing can be trsusted.
And every post on WIkipedia has been moderated to be politically correct. and politically correct does not only apply to hot political topics.
It applies to every topic U can ever think of, since everything and I mean everything has been politicized. Including the weather, what we eat. everything related to anything is moderated in one way or another and thus it SUCKS!
1
0
0
blood eagle enjoyer
scathach@stereophonic.space
1
0
0
🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘
Humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club
1
0
0
Chaotic Good-ish Barbarian
Deplorable_Degenerate@eveningzoo.club
0
0
0
SuperDicq
SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo@georgia Oh yeah if the CIA said so its definitely real and totally not a psyop…
Remote viewing is pseudoscience.
2
0
1
Schizo Ramblings <3
Cara@snug.moe@georgia easy solution, read up on the papers and publish a summary as an article in some newspaper, then cite yourself in the wikipedia edit
0
0
1
@georgia
Imagine believing anything the CIA has ever said
I'm fully convinced that dreams and dejavu contain visions of the future. I've personally experienced knowing for a fact that I dreamt the exact circumstances years earlier. Almost being able to point at WHEN I dreamt it
But I don't think there's ever going to be verifiable evidence of magic, so we HAVE to act like its not real
0
0
0
Arkana
Arkana@poa.stYou have ancient stories of people who were said to "fly on vessels propelled only by thought alone" and they were writing very literally. It's just not something that happens physically, it's something that happens mentally.
It was only recently accepted that "lucid dreams" actually exist at all. People have been having lucid dreams and astral projections throughout history but they have only been even started to be accepted by "modern science" in 1968.
0
0
0
Failure_Personified
FailurePersonified@clubcyberia.co
0
0
0
arcana@layer02.net
arcana@layer02.net
0
0
0
arcana@layer02.net
arcana@layer02.net
1
0
0
Avian Blue
realpetrateal@social.xenofem.me
0
0
0
Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever
WandererUber@poa.st
1
0
0
arcana@layer02.net
arcana@layer02.net
1
0
0
Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever
WandererUber@poa.streal thinker this guy
1
0
1
Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever
WandererUber@poa.st
0
0
1
woodland creature
meowski@fluf.club
0
0
0
Henry Louis Cadmin
HLC@noauthority.social@georgia
Wikipedia has spurned primary sources in favor of "reliable"/" authoritative" secondary sources for a long time. If you do cite a primary source you aren't supposed to interpret it at all, just say what it says. People don't like it and you can critique it as credentialism or gatekeeping or censorship but that's just how wiki works, for every article. It's not just about woowoo stuff.
0
0
1