6 ms·
Truth is biased. I am OK with someone taking a stand on what the truth is and the fact there are meta discussions on what the truth is is reassuring. If someone
by hayst4ck 3y ago
Truth is biased. I am OK with someone taking a stand on what the truth is and the fact there are meta discussions on what the truth is is reassuring. If someone thinks Taiwan is a part of China, they are going to feel like an authoritative source of information describing Taiwan as a sovereign country is "harmful."
Fascist ideology doesn't want the idea of truth to exist and Wikipedia weighing in and saying "this is the best approximation of truth we got" is a small but powerful assault against fascist ideology.
The purpose of free speech is to protect speaking truth to power. If there is no conception of what truth is then how can one speak truth to power?
"Dubious donations" seems like the epitome of FUD.
- Bran_son 3y ago[flagged]
- z_open 3y agoEvery nontechnical article is full of selective quotes, from borderline random people, which have no place in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia has facts. That's not what Wikipedia even tries to do. If it wasn't auch a great source for the sciences I would be ok with it going away.
- doctor_eval 3y ago> That's not what Wikipedia even tries to do I think it’s exactly what Wikipedia tries to do. But given the scale of things its not going to get it right every time.