you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

The basis for the second article is that there is thousands of Nazis on Wikipedia, seemingly writing barely-challenged lies. The point of the second article is that Wikipedia has a nazi problem, which leads to it having a right-wing bias.
I don't believe it's some sinister plot by Wikipedia, but it is a fact that it is an issue wikipedia has. It is the downside to the "everyone is an editor" format which the site makes use of

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    The two things just seem to undermine each other, but that aside, I hope the other sources will do, whatever your criteria is for a good source.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You were being critiqued for use of Wikipedia, you defended Wikipedia as being neutral, I pointed out how it wasn't. That is the crux of the discussion you and I have been having. I am not embroiled in a larger one about the DPRK or whatever. Wikipedia sucks as a source and now you know, hopefully that'll keep you from using dogshit source material some other time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment