Uh I dunno I’m pretty sure there are articles written more poorly and inaccurately than the wiki article which has 358 citations you can do you fact checking with
But people who are biased can go on there and edit, so ehh. Maybe Gaddafi’s supporters can go on there and twist things, or conservative america goes in there and twists things.
Any writer for any publication anywhere can twist the truth
Though apparently he also worked with the Black P.Stones for a supposed terrorist plot.
True, but you can recognize easily writers of articles, whereas wikipedia isn’t up front about who edits it. Not a big deal. Jus’ saying
who cares, it’s not like the next leader is guaranteed to be better.
RIP Gaddafi we’ll always have Lockerbie
The new leadership might be ‘better’ threats to the international community than Gaddafi was.
AS long as the new assholes who are going to regress Libya back to the stone age, got thier power in a democratic fashion its all good.
And the website or publication is held accountable for it. Anyone can register and edit wikipedia. On any subject, whether they want to falsify something or they have incorrect information that they think is accurate.
It is great for goofing around on, but citing it as a actual source is a really foolish move. You can easily end up quoting false information.
And we’re pushing our western style democracy, and economic system which is failing (or at least failing the majority of the population). :tdown:
I’m at least glad we’re getting the troops out of Iraq :rock:
yeah any day now buddy
Read it my friend :rock:
hmm, what do you know. good for us.
although there is this:
I guess I’m just always skeptical when we build huge embassies and our corporations become entrenched that we are ever actually going to leave. You can bet there will still be a lot of usa mercenaries running around.
While also going into Uganda, fuck yeah :rock:
Why do people still act like wikipedia is grossly inaccurate? Is it 100% accurate all the time? No, but that’s not even a fair judgement. You can’t cite it because it doesn’t have listed authors and none of the information is actually published. But it’s not like the site is a free-for-all. Go ahead and put in inaccurate information on a significant subject, see how long it stays up there. Most articles are quite well-cited, they even have the links right at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia is an information compilation rather than a professionally-written and researched article. That doesn’t automatically designate it as an inaccurate fustercluck.
Wikipedia is, in fact, an encyclopedia, that consolidates general information and cites general information articles. Which is fantastic for certain subjects that aren’t highly disputed… like historical and political events. When you’re discussing a highly contentious issue, posting a Wikipedia link, especially when you don’t explain the link’s relevance, is only slightly less obnoxious than replying with Reddit spam, and makes you look like a smegma-head. Journal databases, written and reviewed by experts on the subject, are the better resource if you want to learn something beyond gee-whiz info.
I’m well aware brah but I think its far from “the WORST place possible [to read facts]”, especially if all you want to do is get a general idea of what kinda dude Gadhafi is. Nobody is writing a term paper here or anything.