https://mobile.twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318
I guess three years was a good run: https://mobile.twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1043859278774370305
https://mobile.twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318
I guess three years was a good run: https://mobile.twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1043859278774370305
My favorite absolutely baby-brained response on that thread is "who are you to decide for me what's relevant on the internet?" What the fuck do you think the point of a search engine is?
When people stopped paying for TV and print media, all those propaganda voices had to go somewhere. It also pisses them off so, so, so much that the open internet just let's you view primary sources about life outside the "international rules based order" rather than tall tales about what evil Big Bad's regime is spreading all over the globe with the source "trust me bro, we're good for it".
This! It's still a problem in academia also, I remember at university they would not let you (and afaik still don't) cite Wikipedia. Has to be all "academic", in other words institutionally approved sources (books, official statements etc).
deleted by creator
Agree, the point was more about only "legit" sources being acceptable. Which do have their own biases. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816
deleted by creator
I wasn't aware of that. I knew they could cite mainstream sources heavily and exclusively, but I didn't know that was the policy rather than just what most editors did.
deleted by creator
Thank you!
That's less a bias issue than it is an issue with what kinds of sources in general are appropriate for citation in academic writing. The issue is not with Wikipedia itself, but rather with the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, like any encyclopedia. I think most professors on the younger side recognize Wikipedia as a generally reliable source for information (with some exceptions). It's a great place to start your research, but it's usually far too general to be of use in constructing a good paper. It's useful for orienting yourself, getting a 10,000 meter view on a subject, or learning what the general professional consensus is about some issue (again, with some exceptions--it's much less trustworthy when it comes to current events and politics than it is when it comes to quantum mechanics), but it should be a jumping off point, like any other tertiary source.