Yessir, i do believe that the information on Wikipedia resembles the truth a lot more than anything that comes from lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml or hexbear.net. And you know why? Because Wikipedia gives me sources i can read up and decide myself if that's bullshit or not, and those sources are not some bizarre substack ramblings or youtube videos with 150 views. And also because Wikipedia leaves politics aside as good as they can - if your perception of reality has anything to with what the world at large has agreed on, but there i lost ya, didn't i?

Did you copy and paste the wrong quote? That doesn't say anything about organ harvesting.

Also

9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

(en.m.wikipedia.org)

Pizzagate conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

(en.m.wikipedia.org)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

(en.m.wikipedia.org)

This guy is a troll and he's going to keep asking questions as long as people keep answering them.

I'm just going to block him and move on; got no time to suffer fools like this any more.

Someone is mad their sources got removed for not being credible.

How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?

Subject matter experts do still exist. They're dying off, and it's unclear how many more we intend to create. But we do still have some.

Yessir, i do believe that the information on Wikipedia resembles the truth a lot more than anything that comes from lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml or hexbear.net.

Yes, I do: because it confirms the things you already believed

Because Wikipedia gives me sources i can read up and decide myself if that’s bullshit or not

And do you? Do you read all those books from Anne Applebaum and similar right wing pundits? Do you read all the reports from far right think tanks like Australian Strategic Policy Institute? Do you read claims of not just the publications, but the save individual people, who have consistently repeated every verified lie to come out of the US state department, from WMDS in Iraq to babies in ovens in Gaza? How exactly are you "deciding for yourself" if that's bullshit?

And also because Wikipedia leaves politics aside as good as they can

They really don't. Not that it's even possible to "leave politics aside" when talking about things that are political. Thinking they do is basically admition that you consider your politics "the default".

if your perception of reality has anything to with what the world at large has agreed on, but there i lost ya, didn’t i?

You really want to commit the argument "it's true because it agrees with the average political position of westerners?" (because by "the world at large", you, naturally, where only talking about westerners.)

To all of your points: i look at current behavior.

I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it.

Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.

I also do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the CCP is messing with their citizens, because they do the same every time it's -time on Weibo.

And i didn't need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think "i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already" and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i'm not debating you, i'm laughing at your impotence lol

To all of your points: i look at current behavior.
I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it.
Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.

So by your own admition, you just base it on how much it agrees with your preexisting beliefs. Though I notice you still seem willing to believe US sources despite them being an autocracy.

And apparently literally any accusation against China is true by definition? Do you not believe it is possible for anything about China to be a lie? Do you also believe they deliberately released covid? Because the sources that Wikipedia uses do

And i didn’t need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think “i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already” and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i’m not debating you, i’m laughing at your impotence lol

It was like, 6 sentences man, are you remotely capable of not acting like a pouting baby? This kind of Pavlovian attack response to having your beliefs challenged is no different than the average MAGA chud.

you know what else screams Pavlov? the average length of .ml users responses

To all of your points: i look at current behavior.
I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it.
Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.

So by your own admition, you just base it on how much it agrees with your preexisting beliefs. Though I notice you still seem willing to believe US sources despite them being an autocracy.

And apparently literally any accusation against China is true by definition? Do you not believe it is possible for anything about China to be a lie? Do you also believe they deliberately released covid? Because the sources that Wikipedia uses do

And i didn’t need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think “i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already” and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i’m not debating you, i’m laughing at your impotence lol

It was like, 6 sentences man, are you remotely capable of not acting like a pouting baby? This kind of Pavlovian attack response to having your beliefs challenged is no different than the average MAGA chud.

If you check sources like you count that will finally explain this whole exchange. Your reply literally covers an entire screen. If you can't even admit to something so tiny, how can anyone expect you to be reasonable and admit to anything? This is a .ml discussion in a nutshell. And then you wonder why people are tired of talking to you. Lmao.

How bad has literacy gotten that that seems like a lot of text to you? My count was about right, by the way. And if you actually read it, the point was that I actually do check sources, unlike the rest of you.

See what I mean? Ad hominems instead of just admitting anything. Keep insisting there's only 6 sentences there, that'll make it true. It definitely helped China some.

Mate, you were the one who started in with the "ad-hominems" (actually you just mean insults, but are too much of a redditer to just say that).

You can keep whining that reading a few hundred words is too much for you, but writing just as many words removed about it isnt

& this cannot be abused by Admins with agendas ?

How are you able to determine matters of fact by pure critical thinking? Are you really claiming that you are immune to lies?

For research I put trust in peer review articles by reputable journals.

Great! I wish Wikipedia was held to that standard, rather than regularly using tabloids, think tanks, and literal propaganda outlets.

How are you able to determine matters of fact by pure critical thinking? Are you really claiming that you are immune to lies?

For research I put trust in peer review articles by reputable journals.

Great! I wish Wikipedia was held to that standard, rather than regularly using tabloids, think tanks, and literal propaganda outlets.

Yeah, keep going, this is entertaining, go full mask off. Do you have a channel called pirate software by any chance? You remind me of that dude.