Nekobit on Nostr: thegreatape :gentoo: :nixos: :sway: No, I understand what you mean, though I can poke ...
thegreatape :gentoo: :nixos: :sway: (npub1j5l…wxv4) No, I understand what you mean, though I can poke on your first point:
Pharma doesn't mean anything. I'd imagine that this observation of "Pharma contributing to Wikipedia" is become some retarded nignog went and scanned IP's and found they linked to some locations. I'm not saying it's not a possibility and I'm sure people who work in Pharma would contribute their research, but let's take a popular Pharmaceutical issue like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Controversy). Wikipedia isn't some social baron that's going to explain everything, but do NOTE how it talks about controversies. The pharma information might as well be "correct", but it's not like they're mind controlling people into needing Pharma. I think pharma is certainly a big issue due to people just relying on it without lifestyle changes, but if pharmaceutical industries want to contribute to Wikipedia, that doesn't make it "wrong" nor "biased" though.
Are there opposing voices on Wikipedia though? Certainly, that's why they usually DEBATE things. Wikipedia is surprisingly stupidly small for what it's worth if you didn't already know.
>Also I'm pretty sure the way sources work, people can source incorrect information and it gets accepted.
Yeah well no fucking shit. I can take a fat dump on a street and someone can say it's correct. You're missing my point entirely.
>They basically only accept sources that were in news orgs, or books, which is kind of ridiculous to me at least.
Well i'm basically trying to defend the whole "free education" shit that extremist mastodongs defend so hard; i'm saying we have it right now but it's certainly up to the person themselves to learn or whatever. Yes, this information probably needs to come from genuine studies, organizations, and even books. We don't live in a correct world, we just have to make up for what we know. Wikipedia does an excellent job citing that all nicely.
>but I don't trust it at all.
You aren't going to trust anything then but retarded NHK delusion faggots on the internet are more-so correct?
>substack
Pharma doesn't mean anything. I'd imagine that this observation of "Pharma contributing to Wikipedia" is become some retarded nignog went and scanned IP's and found they linked to some locations. I'm not saying it's not a possibility and I'm sure people who work in Pharma would contribute their research, but let's take a popular Pharmaceutical issue like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Controversy). Wikipedia isn't some social baron that's going to explain everything, but do NOTE how it talks about controversies. The pharma information might as well be "correct", but it's not like they're mind controlling people into needing Pharma. I think pharma is certainly a big issue due to people just relying on it without lifestyle changes, but if pharmaceutical industries want to contribute to Wikipedia, that doesn't make it "wrong" nor "biased" though.
Are there opposing voices on Wikipedia though? Certainly, that's why they usually DEBATE things. Wikipedia is surprisingly stupidly small for what it's worth if you didn't already know.
>Also I'm pretty sure the way sources work, people can source incorrect information and it gets accepted.
Yeah well no fucking shit. I can take a fat dump on a street and someone can say it's correct. You're missing my point entirely.
>They basically only accept sources that were in news orgs, or books, which is kind of ridiculous to me at least.
Well i'm basically trying to defend the whole "free education" shit that extremist mastodongs defend so hard; i'm saying we have it right now but it's certainly up to the person themselves to learn or whatever. Yes, this information probably needs to come from genuine studies, organizations, and even books. We don't live in a correct world, we just have to make up for what we know. Wikipedia does an excellent job citing that all nicely.
>but I don't trust it at all.
You aren't going to trust anything then but retarded NHK delusion faggots on the internet are more-so correct?
>substack