• Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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