When did you realise Wikichads are winning?

[Anonymous No.18916179]

Let go of the belief that reading in and of itself is a good and start seeing reading for what it is: the attainment of information. For the same reason you wouldn't download a picture that was 300mb if you found a 500kb version that was exactly the same by all practical measure, you wouldn't read 300 pages when a single Wikipedia article could give you every piece of information you needed to know in 15 minutes. Of course there will always be books that are worth reading in full, but the future belongs to the man who masters the art of determining which books are those books and which books can be attained in their entirety through the skimming of a Wikipedia page.

[Anonymous No.18916185]

>>18916179
Reading wikipedia is like looking at 20x20 pixel compressed jpg's of the Mona Lisa.

[Anonymous No.18916189]

>>18916185
Only if you are blind. If you aren't able to extract a hefty amount of information from a Wikipedia article, that says something very dire about you as an individual.

[Anonymous No.18916198]

>>18916189
The vast majority of wikipedia articles distort the actual writings of philosophers to the point where they are no longer even comprehendible. Anyone who has ever studied actual philosophy can immediately realize this. Wikipedia is absolutely worthless for gaining a critical and rational understanding of higher thought. It is at best descriptive, and even then, only barely, because it gets details wrong about so many philosophers and philosophies.

[Anonymous No.18916201]

>>18916198
Post three examples.

[Anonymous No.18916204]

>>18916201
Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.18916223]

>>18916198
Wikipedia is terrible. But reading SEP is great. Certainly not a substitute for primary sources, but it would greatly enhance your understanding especially of specialized topics.

[Anonymous No.18916255]

>>18916204
Post the actual quote from the Wikipedia article that is wrong.

[Anonymous No.18916256]

>>18916179
>but the future belongs to the man who masters the art of determining which books are worth reading
WOW anon, such a insight, is not like people do this for centuries already?

[Anonymous No.18916266]

>>18916256
Well now you know kid.

[Anonymous No.18916267]

>>18916179
Based. Wikichads we cannot stop winning.

[Anonymous No.18916284]

>>18916256
Post 3 examples of people who used Wikipedia in this way centuries ago.

[Anonymous No.18916290]

>>18916179
Wikipedia is, along with reddit, the cancer that will kill the internet

[Anonymous No.18916293]

>>18916179
How is that Wikipedia winning? Wikipedia is that effective because it carries over the fire of knowledge first lit by the French encyclopedists by effectively using the world wide web.
It's sort of the same way that McDonald's transformed the food industry by franchising and globalizing its business model.
But I still don't understand what they're winning and who they're winning against. I think that Wikipedia has a good place right now and is an example of the good things the world wide web has contributed to humanity, unlike Social Media which has just been awful.

[Anonymous No.18916302]

>>18916179
I read for fun

[Anonymous No.18916303]

>>18916255
This infantile image is plastered on the Aristotle wikipedia as a "demonstration" of the two differences of substance. Not only is it the typical retard misinterpretation of Plato's cosmology, it doesn't even get Aristotle's own view of substance correct from the Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.18916311]

>>18916303
Post two more.

[Anonymous No.18916323]

>>18916303
Post 8 reasons why it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.18916325]

>>18916303
It’s certainly reductionist but it’s not exactly wrong.

[Anonymous No.18916334]

>>18916323
my god you're insufferable

[Anonymous No.18916343]

Birth control is free for men, it’s called reading whole books when the Wikipedia page suffices.

Pic related: Average whole book reader. Don’t be that guy.

[Anonymous No.18916348]

>>18916334
>he can’t do it

[Anonymous No.18916349]

>>18916303
Could someone explain me the form and matter thing? I don't know anything about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18916355]

>>18916179
This applies especially to linguistics, most linguists will tell you to just read the phonology section of the wikipedia article on the particular language you want to learn about. Don't forget actual encyclopedias, handbooks, guides as well, Britannica, Iranica, etc

[Anonymous No.18916356]

>>18916349
>What is the topic of the thread

[Anonymous No.18916357]

>>18916179
Yes, finally a fellow True Chad of High Effciency. We are rare, because our livestyles are so difficult to integrate into this inefficient society.

For instance, I only consume Onions Meal Replacement shakes for all my caloric and nutritional needs, but sometimes, I must efficiently maintain close relationships. This is oftentimes done via eating dinner together, which is a highly inefficient activity in itself, but you must compromise in in this society. However, I've taken to bring a blender when I am invited to dinner parties, so that I may transform the food I am served into a shake - but I meet nothing but derision. Afterwards, we will sometimes watch a movie or show, (which is in itself stupid, when I could have just read a two minute summary rather than watch it), so I try to compromise and watch it at 3x speed, but people get mad at me. My girlfriend wont even have sex with me anymore, after I optimized penetration so that I cum in 0.667 seconds average, which is highly efficient.

Any tips from fellow Highly Efficient Chads?

[Anonymous No.18916360]

>>18916303
Christ that's bad.

>>18916323
How about you open a book?

>>18916325
Reductionist is always wrong.

[Anonymous No.18916374]

>>18916325
It is wrong, it's not even merely reductionist. There is no "world of forms" in Plato's cosmology. And Aristotle specifically states that matter is not substantial at all, it is the very antithesis of substance because it lacks all possible predicates. "Things" (by which they've tried to indicate "substance") are actually forms which appear in something which has no substance, which is to say doesn't exist (empty space). In this silly diagram the Platonic image is actually closer to Aristotle (although not vice versa), except "world of matter" is the "world of forms", and the "world of forms" becomes "essence."

[Anonymous No.18916375]

>>18916360
>Reductionist is always wrong.

The irony being that this a reductionist statement? Or were you being serious…

[Anonymous No.18916382]

>>18916374
I don't get it. If you have things, you have things. If you don't have things, you don't have things. Why do philosophers make up some retarded types of essence of the substance of their dicks or whatever?

[Anonymous No.18916386]

Wiki articles is good for math stuff. Ain't skimming my book for all the definitions

[Anonymous No.18916391]

bro that's not what wikipedia is for, it's a quick reference that mostly serves as an outline. not to mention its quality varies a lot and you have no idea how biased an article is.

[Anonymous No.18916398]

>>18916375
>The irony being that this a reductionist statement
no it's not you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.18916399]

>>18916375
No and yes.

[Anonymous No.18916400]

>>18916179
The only good part of wikipedia is natural sciences, the rest is either filled with propaganda or incomplete.

[Anonymous No.18916401]

>>18916374
How to say I didn’t understand Aristotle and Plato without actually saying it.

[Anonymous No.18916404]

for me, Wikipedia is almost completely useless
for the subjects I know nothing about, reading some page about it doesn't get me anywhere, I get only a vague grasp which'll be forgotten soon
for the subject I have understanding about, Wikipedia is plainly useless
It has some use only to check dates or facts

[Anonymous No.18916410]

>>18916391
btw for philosophy it is near useless. and it's pretty bad for history too (tends to insert too much unsubstantiated assertions and speculation made by random literal who academics and often fails to relay the basic facts properly).

[Anonymous No.18916414]

>>18916401
I can almost guarantee your understanding is flawed if you think Plato thought there was a distinct world of forms.

[Anonymous No.18916415]

Reading is first of all an activity and this cannot be substituted. :3

[Anonymous No.18916420]

>>18916398
>all of ‘thing’ is this singular
>not a reductionist statement

yeah I’m thinking you are retarded

[Anonymous No.18916426]

>>18916404
Is somewhat a progress though, many people wouldn't ever grasp even the basic or have a reference to go over subjects after finishing school without it, is worse than old pedias in precision, but the accessibility is way better.

[Anonymous No.18916428]

>>18916360
>Christ that's bad.
Why?
>How about you open a book?
Nvm, you don't know.

[Anonymous No.18916430]

>>18916179
>this thread again

Okay you fucking retard go read & fully understand concepts that the write spend his whole life trying to write them down perfectly in a 5 minute synopsis of a book.

In a wikipedia article you are not reading the book you are just learning about it. You are not living in the character's skin,you are just learning facts about something.

Reading wikipedia artictles is the same thing as learning facts about space when you literally know nothing about it.

[Anonymous No.18916431]

>>18916420
>reduce something to one part of it or something else entirely, making it different (i.e. wrong, incomplete, misleading)
it is not reductionist to observe this. the other anon did not do any reductionism. i have no idea what you're talking about and assume you don't know what reductionism is.

[Anonymous No.18916439]

>>18916431
Wow now THIS is what I call a low IQ

[Anonymous No.18916451]

>>18916185
And?

[Anonymous No.18916473]

>>18916185
>>18916198
>>18916256
>>18916290
>>18916303
>>18916357
>>18916391
>>18916404
>>18916415
>>18916430
Wholeists are seething hard itt. God it feels good to be a wikichad right now.

[Anonymous No.18916484]

I agree with this, mostly because U often add new shit that I learn to Wikipedia pages. Occasionally I learn that what I write was bullshit but editing something away on Wikipedia is hard because users will have taken some sort of ownership of the article and prevent my revert of my bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18916489]

All this thread has proved is that a large proportion of lit secretly loves wikipedia but is too afraid to admit it unless there's a chad pic attached.
I say this as someone who reads books and uses wikipedia regularly.

[Anonymous No.18916551]

>>18916451
>800x800

[Anonymous No.18916554]

>>18916179
For everything stated on wikipedia there's a reference, you can just go read the reference and you'll have an actual understanding, or see if the source itself is bullshit. I wouldn't take summaries from some fat fuck at a computer when I can read the primary source myself.

Pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.18916566]

>THIS ARTICLE IS PART OF A SERIES ON EVILBAD WRONGTHINK

[Anonymous No.18916611]

>>18916179
Lmao go a step further.
Wikichands aren't winning either.
Big players who move the world are winning. No one else is winning. Doesn't matter if you get your info in bite sized pieces or an entire meal. All the info you gathered to argue with strangers online or with your friends is moot.

[Anonymous No.18916625]

Brainlet thread

[Anonymous No.18916631]

>>18916551
you are kimda retarded lol