The evidence for it is Wikipedia itself. If you have a concrete example of it siting something demonstrably wrong, bring it up, we can examine it here and if you are right, even fix it.
The evidence for it is Wikipedia itself. If you have a concrete example of it siting something demonstrably wrong, bring it up, we can examine it here and if you are right, even fix it.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
So literally just the Holy Scripture argument: “the Bible is true, and the evidence is the Bible”
Nalivai@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I can bring up a lot of wrongs with the bible. I would like you to do the same with Wikipedia. Bring an example.
Just to be clear, since it seems it needs to be spelled out to you, I’m not saying Wikipedia is infallible, quite the opposite, it’s written by people. I’m saying there are mechanisms and culture to correct the wrongs, which means it’s better than probably any collection of knowledge humanity ever had.
So again, if you have examples, bring them up. Until then, don’t do the regular accusatory confessions you all do, it’s very boring and predictable.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
I was going to chime in on this thread, but then I saw who it was that you’re arguing with.
I would save my breath if I were you. Not worth the time.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Then you chimed in anyway. Sorry I criticised your holy scripture
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
Actually, you undeniably did: you said it “just lists facts”. You said that “Wikipedia itself is evidence that Wikipedia is factual”. You literally just said that “it’s better than any collection of knowledge humanity ever had.”
This is how someone talks about religious scripture.
Go back to Reddit you wannabe anime villain loser. Jesus Christ, you zealots are incapable of not talking like the most bad faith smug man children alive.
But here’s an example for your bad faith ass: Wikipedia states Israel has universal suffrage. Now let’s here your apologetic for why your holy book is correct even though it contradicts reality