Wikipedia is a source for information; however, I often proceed with caution. A few years ago I started noticing that they labeled some people as being far-right and conspiracy theorist. Often times, those labels can be seen as subjective opinions. As a consequence of that, I began to have doubts with relevance to some information which they provided. Of course, it takes two to Tango, so I label them as being far-left often times.They still have the potential to be a great source for information, regardless.
Followers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why don't we return to normal Standard Time in early October instead of November?
Why don't we return to normal Standard Time in early October instead of November? Perhaps people would understand that it gets darker ea...
-
When people are comfortable they usually tolerate things even if it means losing a little bit of freedom. Of course, freedom is taken away ...
-
The phrase drain the swamp has gained a great deal of momentum, but when one hears some talk about the swamp, it doesn't sound like they...
You're spot on. Wikipedia, I believe, is crowdsourced, so you have to be careful. Would love to see more transparency in the publication process, as I am also inclined to believe that far-leftists are disproportionately contributing to these pages to push their political narratives.
ReplyDeleteAri, thank you for sharing. Sounds like you're spot-on, as well.
ReplyDelete