4 ms·
Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. Its written by humans.
by ekianjo 4y ago
Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. Its written by humans.
- noahtallen 4y agoSo would every other source ;)
- willis936 4y agoNot the news articles generated by bots that take in words written by humans then run them through a lawnmower. Now that's what I consider a reliable source.
- ekianjo 4y agoSo why do we cite wikipedia like its written by a higher power or something. Wikipedia content is hardly difficult to hack in one way or another as proven times and times over.
- leephillips 4y ago“We” don’t; those who do take at least a mild hit to their credibility.
- antiterra 4y agoNo one is citing it as a higher power, simply an easily accessed central repository. I didn’t fly to France to verify it as a primary source for a comment thread but I already knew Daguerre was an artist. This isn’t an academic paper.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoThis comment sounds like it also belongs in the 'the map is not the terrain' discussion.
- antiterra 4y agoAs a quick reference for easily verifiable biography in an internet discussion forum, it’s fine. If you want more proof, then fly to Bry-Sur-Marne and interrogate everyone there about the provenance of the only existing Daguerre panorama. https://museedebry.fr/#/homepage-daguerre/en https://museedebry.fr/#/homepage-daguerre/en