DrSteveBrule
@DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
- Comment on Japan anon complains about Google 1 week ago:
I can’t use Yandex as it just makes me complete endless capchas
- Comment on Still wanna know 1 month ago:
What is top right from?
- Comment on suck it, math nerds 2 months ago:
Can pi be expressed with a finite amount of digits in another number system?
- Comment on suck it, math nerds 2 months ago:
I’m confused, how is pi used as a unit? My understanding is that it’s a number
- Comment on weaponized nerdery 2 months ago:
Yes I agree with that. I think there was an issue with establishing what “source” meant in the given context. I wouldn’t say the text of a single wikipedia article is a reliable source by itself, however that doesn’t discredit the reliability of accurate information on Wikipedia in my opinion. If you stripped a textbook of it’s listed citations and credited authors, then you can’t really verify the information in it either.
- Comment on weaponized nerdery 2 months ago:
You’re missing a lot of other points I’ve made. Let me ask you then what is a reliable source of information? You’re skepticism implies nothing is trustworthy if you have to verify information with various sources. Do you only trust what you can observe first hand?
- Comment on weaponized nerdery 2 months ago:
It depends on the website. A Twitter post with no source? Untrustworthy. Wikipedia page with plenty of sources to back up the article? I would default to saying trustworthy, but of course I would still have to check the sources myself. Wikipedia is a tool. It connects you to outside sources of info. It has the reputation of being reliable enough to get trustworthy info in its summaries. As I’ve already stated before, mistakes have been made though.
- Comment on weaponized nerdery 2 months ago:
Wikipedia isn’t a person though. It’s a website of articles that summarizes topics and ideally lists sources that contain the info within it. I agree a person that sounds like that is untrustworthy, but that doesn’t mean anything on the topic of wikipedia.
- Comment on weaponized nerdery 2 months ago:
The first paragraph of the first link they posted says that wikipedia’s reliability has been generally praised over the last 10 years.
- Comment on weaponized nerdery 2 months ago:
Info on Wikipedia shouldn’t be taken at face value, check the sources given! A lot of the examples you gave likely didn’t have any citation. The blame for misinformation partly lies with the people accepting information with no sources given. Also, any example of known misinformation just means that it has been caught and corrected. Everyone should know wikipedia is not right 100% of the time but it is always getting better. There millions of articles and I don’t think the examples you listed should lead anyone to believe it is overall unreliable. It is good however to not blindly put your trust in whatever you read from it, and if you do come across something that isn’t correct, you have the opportunity to fix it.
- Comment on weaponized nerdery 2 months ago:
It’s definitely not 100% foolproof to misinformation, but I’ve always found wikipedia to be reliable. Why do you feel it isnt?
- Comment on What happens when people die with metal on or on them? 6 months ago:
That’s what we thought, but when we asked to keep the bullet we were told it was reduced to ash with everything else.
- Comment on What happens when people die with metal on or on them? 6 months ago:
There’s an episode of Nathan For You where he tries to test if a pizza oven will cremate a body but he gave up after a few hours lol
- Comment on What happens when people die with metal on or on them? 6 months ago:
My grandfather died with a bullet in his foot had been there for about 40 years. He was cremated and there was nothing left of the bullet.