Wikipedia: not reliable

[Anonymous No.15841692]

Wikipedia used to be my go-to source on literally everything. Physics, math, current events, history, etc. But now I know. It is a toxic cesspool of political activists and intelligence agency spooks.

Just thought you should know too

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wikipedia-co-founder-describes-us-intelligence-manipulation-worlds-largest-online

[Anonymous No.15841789]

>>15841692
Not to be rude, but if you didn't notice anything, and now it is obvious to you, it doesn't sound like you used it for anything useful in the first place...
Anyway, intelligence agency spooks are not really a problem. They often get b@. Political activism, on the other hand, I'd say so. It's definitely a problem because news articles can be used, and are often placed as sources.

[Anonymous No.15841828]

>>15841692
It was always like that. The jews are well known forgers of lies, fabricators of "historical" documents. They did it for money, they did it for power.

[Anonymous No.15841883]

>>15841692
>But now
Holy shit that took you a while

[Anonymous No.15841901]

>>15841692
And you don't think these spooks and activists are here, right now? You think the pedophiles in mossad/fbi/cia and other glonig ops aren't everywhere?

[Anonymous No.15842095]

yeah, wikipedia is nothing but toxic goyslop

[Anonymous No.15842123]

>>15841692
you can still use it for science and math retard

[Anonymous No.15842150]

>>15841692
is there an alternative reliable encyclopedia out there?

[Anonymous No.15842259]

wikipedia is gay.
went searching for zodiac symbol shit yesterday and wikipedia is trying to push new symbols made by some random nobody as an attempt to replace the familiar symbols.
seemed gay.

also they have a retarded article on there claiming the modern calendar with january as the 1st month instead of the 11th month it's supposed to be, occurred because of a change in 150~BC by the romans.
i was like lol what
their months had their own language's number system built into it, why would they start writing "8th month = 10" when referring to october.

bunch of faggot shit on that website. bunch of retarded homos literally pulling made-up shit out of their asses.

[Anonymous No.15842306]

>>15841692
It's impossible not to notice.
Anything human related is vacuous and useless, anything technical tends to be incomprehensible gibberish. Both tend to be overlaid by some sort of agenda.

[Anonymous No.15843256]

>>15842150
>is there an alternative reliable encyclopedia out there?
wikipedia isn't reliable, its just a bunch of lies

[Anonymous No.15843272]

>>15841692
it has become one of the biggest glowops in modern history.

[Anonymous No.15843351]

The samefagging in this thread is truly astonishing.

[Anonymous No.15844132]

>>15842123
no you can't, its all lies

[Anonymous No.15844981]

>>15841692
>But now I know. It is a toxic cesspool of political activists and intelligence agency spooks.
So, what? You came to 4chan??
LOL

[Anonymous No.15844983]

>>15842259
>went searching for zodiac symbol shit yesterday and wikipedia is trying to push new symbols made by some random nobody as an attempt to replace the familiar symbols.
Did you try the article for "Zodiac"? Because that has the traditional symbols
>also they have a retarded article on there claiming the modern calendar with january as the 1st month instead of the 11th month it's supposed to be, occurred because of a change in 150~BC by the romans.
>i was like lol what
Yeah, it explains all that if you bother to read on. The pre-Julian calendar was some wild shit.
You are simply proudly and arrogantly ignorant and in no position to judge wikipedia desu

[Anonymous No.15845089]

>>15841789
>intelligence agency spooks are not really a problem.
>It's definitely a problem because news articles can be used, and are often placed as sources.
intelligence agency spooks control whats published in the MSM

[Anonymous No.15845813]

[Anonymous No.15845832]

>>15841692
It's alright for basic context, there's not many other good resources, besides finding obscure books, but it is what it is.
It's part of my information collection routine and I don't see it disappearing, but chatgpt has been replacing 60% of my google searches according to my statistics and 40% of my wiki searches (I'm including off brand wiki sites too like wiktionary).
Yes I track my own statistics on how I collect/learn information.

[Anonymous No.15846084]

>>15845832
What do you think about the prospect of replacing chatgpt with Musk's uncensored AI?

[Anonymous No.15846304]

>>15841692
>0 hedge
more like zero sex
go back retard

[Anonymous No.15847048]

>>15845813
>lips
thats a jew

[Anonymous No.15847838]

>>15846084
musk's should end up doing a better job than the mentally handicapped version the sjws are pushing

[Sage No.15847925]

Obvious shill is obvious.

Sage

[Anonymous No.15848391]

>>15846304
>Credibility depends entirely on having a lot of sex!
So why are you here?

>>15847838
He could also add a private wiki to all X accounts.

[Anonymous No.15848783]

>>15844981
>i hate 4chan
why are you here?

[Anonymous No.15849371]

>>15847838
The massive amount of code added to the other AIs to prevent them from repeating "hate facts" costs a ton of runtime overhead, Musk's is not hampered that way so his is guaranteed to be superior

[Anonymous No.15849394]

>>15841692
Well if your former co-founder calls it out, then it is quite apparent.

[Anonymous No.15849461]

>>15841692
You're stupid. You don't just believe everything you see on wikipedia, you READ THE CITATIONS

[Anonymous No.15850082]

>>15849461
>you READ THE CITATIONS
Try. Too often (especially in sensitive topics such as climate stuff), too many links go to newspapers, of which too many are behind paywalls.

They prefer Guardian as a source but scientific papers and primary sources are problematic. Only when quoted (freely) by the Grauniad is a veneer to truthiness bestowed upon a peer reviewed paper. Worse, now Google has increasingly that rag as their primary hit, this is truly Kali Yuga.

[Anonymous No.15851191]

>>15850082
Those citations are often erroneous, misquoted or dead links.
Why bother fact checking an unreliable and routinely dishonest propaganda source like Wikipedia when you can just ignore it completely and avoid wasting time on finding it's flaws?
Heres a good example of how fake and gay Wikipedia is >>15849523

[Anonymous No.15851368]

>>15841692
I stopped visiting wikipedia in 2010

[Anonymous No.15851426]

>>15851191
The same when I read another "source" about lead toxicity...

[Anonymous No.15852366]

>wikipedia-co-founder-describes-us-intelligence-manipulation-worlds-largest-online
Don't even need to click, I know it's the retard who never did shit and keep calling himself "Wikipedia co-founder" all the time to give himself credit while spewing the most retarded shit imaginable.

[Anonymous No.15852493]

>>15851368
Anyone who is true oldfag knew Wikipedia was fake and gay way back in 2006 when 4chan first started making major headline news and the Wikipedia jannies were doing everything they could to keep the facts about 4chan from being on their site. There were massive edit battles that went on, moot's page on Wikipedia must gotten deleted at least 100 times before it became permanent.

[Anonymous No.15852968]

[Anonymous No.15853265]

[Anonymous No.15853290]

>>15841692
Using a tool with no audit security is retarded.
The source can be autideted whenever.
A scientific study is audit secure.
If it is published it is set in stone and if flawed then retracted by never changed over time.

The profound reason on why Wikipedia does not count as a source, on scientific works, is simply because it can be audited, hence your "Reference" in your paper becomes unfounded in the future if some random editor decides to change the text.

A revision safe archived source is the only valid source.

[Anonymous No.15853909]

>>15844983
>bothering to read deeper into an obvious lie
retard alert

[Anonymous No.15854714]

>>15852968
Good find, theres tons and tons of other suspicious deletions all over Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.15855414]

>>15852968

[Anonymous No.15855513]

>>15842259
Actually that second part is true
The Romans originally had October as the 8th month but Julius Caeser changed the calender system causing October to now be the 10th month, they just didn't bother changing the names of them.
The reason for changing the calender was so that it would more accurately follow the seasons.

We still have leap years to this day, calenders are not a perfect system for following the seasons

[Anonymous No.15855514]

>>15842150
Yes, one far away from the interfering hands of modern technology

[Anonymous No.15856141]

>>15852968
>zero citation
>no Hebrew spelling in the word introduction
Good. Wikipedia needs articles, not cum rags.

[Anonymous No.15856194]

>>15856141
>zero citation
Sources were provided, just not in modern form.

[Anonymous No.15856203]

>>15841692
Wikipedia since it was put up as a website has 100% always been not reliable
I went to school in the 90s and every single teacher said "wikipedia is not a reliable source", it was drilled into our heads and its always been known that its just a wikipedia. That's it. If you trusted it, its because you are a dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15856208]

>>15841692
4chan isnt trustworthy at all

[Anonymous No.15856210]

>>15856194
>radioislam
If you don't understand why it was deleted, you are clinically retarded.

[Anonymous No.15856222]

>>15856203
Back in those days the teachers were stuck in the past and thought Wikipedia was equivelant to your stoner friend texting you shit they pulled out of their ass. They didn't use the internet, they didn't have a computer, their idea of reliable information was still in old books in the library.

[Anonymous No.15856236]

>>15841692
lol. Anything with even the midlest amount of political charge is pozzed. I still use it for math and the like, but aside from that it's purpose is to be a propaganda machine.

[Anonymous No.15856240]

>>15841692
>Physics, math
It is still the best source on those by a long shot.
>current events
There are no objective sources on that anywhere in the world.

[Anonymous No.15856339]

>>15856210
>I am going to dodge the question by being all mysterious and inscrutinable.
Please continue. I am bored.

[Anonymous No.15856580]

>>15856203
>I went to school in the 90s
So before wikipedia existed

[Anonymous No.15856591]

>>15855513
Not quite, the Roman Republic already had a twelve month calendar before Caesar (and sometimes thirteen). When January and February were added exactly has been lost to myth. What Caesar did was add a few days and invent the leap day so they could stop inserting a thirteenth month every other year. July and August weren't inserted, they were simply renamed after him.

That is, if you believe wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.15856657]

[Anonymous No.15858154]

>>15856208
>I hate 4chan
why are you here?

[Anonymous No.15858199]

>>15841692
>Zerohedge
Are you fucking serious?

Also Wikipedia has some problems here and there. It is only as good as its contributors make it. Everybody is free to contribute. Do you contribute? That's what you should ask yourself instead of complaining and spewing nonsense. It's still the best and overall great.

[Anonymous No.15858854]

>>15858199
>Everybody is free to contribute
no they aren't, everybody is free to try to contribute, contributions by unwanteds are immediately deleted by picrel and his ilk

[Anonymous No.15858896]

>>15858854 Yea the media should reporting this guy, that's not how I or most editors look like at all. They aren't, there's some areas where things are difficult and some start with these.

[Anonymous No.15859991]

>>15858896
thats what you look like, fatso

[Anonymous No.15860281]

>>15841692
hey there, examine the official community

https://discord.gg/B9YuH3ws

[Anonymous No.15860553]

[Anonymous No.15861211]

>>15860553
>Woke activists have hijacked our scientific and medical institutions, allowing them to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to their pseudoscientific view of sex.
Thats not the only thing they try to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to, just one of many things

[Anonymous No.15861786]

>>15841692
Rates mass media as "reliable sources" lmao

[Anonymous No.15861814]

>>15842150
No. There are alternative versions, but they all have their biases. In the modern age, you simply can't outsource to others judgement about what's really happening. If a subject is important to you, you have to do enough research to be able to determine which sources are the most consistent and congruent. Even then, sometimes a source will be excellent for one subject area and crazy biased for another subject area.
The most truthful media is high cost to subscribe investor sources. Investors need truthful data and information and are willing to pay for it. That data leaks out and filters down to the rest of us, but once it does, it has passed through various bias add filters and is no longer timely, at least not in the investment context. But if you want the truth about the world's helium supply, an investment newsletter on the topic is your best bet but you'll have to pay for it. Otherwise, you're stuck with the rest of us plebes wondering if the newest article on the subject is trying to inform or is just trying to get clicks to get them ad impressions and to push whatever agenda slant the source has.

[Anonymous No.15861829]

>>15856222
>their idea of reliable information was still in old books in the library.
>>15856222

They were right.

[Anonymous No.15862030]

>>15841692
I'd trust what a Wikipedia page says, twenty times over, before I'd trust what a 4channer says.

[Anonymous No.15862047]

>>15841692
wikipedo is a collection of reliable sources that the communists who run the thing feel is reliable; it's all commie lies.

go look at their page on genetics & intelligence, or similar subjects. read their talk pages too. hilarious

[Anonymous No.15862142]

>>15862030
-(trust) x 20 =

[Anonymous No.15862620]

>>15862030
>I hate 4chan
why are you here?

[Anonymous No.15863363]

>>15858199
>It is only as good as its contributors make it
that same meaningless statement could be made about any media outlet, wikipedia is unreliable because they people who contribute to it are dishonest people

[Anonymous No.15863520]

[Anonymous No.15863536]

>>15856141
Confirmed, all jews are enemy combatants.

[Anonymous No.15863673]

>>15856208
I don't believe you

[Anonymous No.15863682]

>>15862620
>>I hate 4chan
that's not what they said, are you seven years old?

[Anonymous No.15863699]

>>15856339
This is why I and nobody else gives a fuck about your plight. You’re dishonest and an all around fucking faggot when asked to substantiate your claims. Kind of ironic to hate jews for being deceptive and then be a shifty little retard

[Anonymous No.15863903]

>>15841789
>because news articles can be used, and are often placed as sources.
That black hole imaging girl from the meme, who got all the fame despite not doing anything important, only has news articles as the sources for her Wikipedia page lmfao.

[Anonymous No.15863905]

>>15842123
The math is alright, although, there are some descriptions and explanations that can be a little questionable at times. For science, other than Physics, it is completely fucking useless.

[Anonymous No.15863914]

>>15845832
>I will replace this one globohomo source with one trained only on the other's globohomo information
Good luck with that

[Anonymous No.15864070]

>>15855513
it is inconceivable that the the alteration to the calendar would have occurred during roman times when they actively knew and spoke the latin language, given the names of the months have numerology built into the names. October isn't a proper noun in latin, it isn't a name. It means "8th month".

You can't conceive of giving a "high-five" with someone else by only having three fingers extended and two fingers contracted; you can't conceive of a "dozen" eggs in a carton only being a count of 10 eggs, and you surely can't conceive of writing the number "eight" as 10.

It's incomprehensible to believe the alteration to the calendar occurred during latin speaking times, initiated by latin speakers.
Wikipedia is certain to claim otherwise, but when it comes right down to it, there's no real evidence; even wikipedia would only be able to reference modernly written things in the age of the internet over the past 20 years.

Speaking of leap years and leap days, a leap day is added onto the end of february because february was ever actively considered to be the 12th month. It makes a hell of a lot of sense to add something extra onto the end of the list, the last extra day of february being the 366th day in a leap year. It also makes no sense to attempt injecting an extra day seemingly arbitrarily 1/6th the way through the year.

Isn't it funny that this is objectively provable to be true by appeal to logic, yet won't make an impact at all? People will continue considering January to the be 1st month. Changing it would be inconvenient. Even that fact goes against why it would or could have ever been changed in the first place to make January the 1st month.

There is a semblance of logical deconstruction leading to contradiction and malaise which invokes rejection to change when it comes to just our calendar. Imagine how messed up the interpretation of reality in general might be if this method could be conceptualized and applied to other knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15864337]

>>15863363
>that same meaningless statement could be made about any media outlet
That is false because other media outlets aren't free for anybody to edit.

[Anonymous No.15864372]

>>15856339
Which question????
Are you okay there, little retard???

[Anonymous No.15864950]

>>15864337
wikipedia isn't free for anyone to edit. try editing it yourself and see what happens.
encyclopediadramatica is free for anyone to edit.

[Anonymous No.15865235]

>>15864950
This. If you're not anointed by the moderators you'll have your edits deleted.

[Anonymous No.15865310]

>>15841692
I noticed a very good example of this last year when Ukraine was invaded. Previously there was an article on the Treaty of Rapallo (1922) between Germany and the early Soviet Union. This normalized economic ties between them since both were impoverished and economically cut off from the rest of the world. Due to their isolation they signed this despite having nothing in common ideologically. Now the article went on to describe how each of the political parties in Germany took this: The left wing ones were happy about it. The right wing ones had mixed feelings but saw how badly it was needed to rescue the economy. And even the far right supported it as a practical measure to speed up re-armament. The only one who said it was "completely wrong" was Hitler, who was furious about it. Of course this was way before the Ribbentrop pact and he was virtually a nobody at the time. After Ukraine was invaded in 2022 this section of the article was deleted. Because in "the narrative" Russia became evil incarnate, and you can't make it seem like Hitler was the only one properly skeptical of them, even concerning a little-known treaty almost 100 years ago that few people know about.

I think the reason it was changed is because in Germany the term "Rapallo" is still used as shorthand for any kind of friendly Germany-Russia relations, and it was probably German spooks editing the English wikipedia article about this for the sake of psyopping their own population (most of whom also speak english).

[Anonymous No.15865393]

>>15865310
There's a lot of this going on with Ukraine-related pages which probably clued many normies in to the untrustworthiness of the site. Changing the historical names of cities is a big one, as well as monuments being renamed from their historic Russian names to a modern made up name.

[Anonymous No.15866606]

Michael Mann's page has been edited to remove all references to him being jewish. Apparently he is ashamed of being jewish and wants to hide it for some reason, or someone else wants to hide it, either way it seems pretty antisemitic to try and disguise the fact that one of the world's most famous and influential scientists is jewish, why would they want to hide that?

[Anonymous No.15866920]

>>15849394
He's a salty man. He went anti vax as well. Going full schizo over his rivalry with Jimboy

[Anonymous No.15869504]

Elon Musk is now officially a """"conspiracy theorist""" according to wikipedia

[Anonymous No.15869635]

>>15869504
wikipedia is run by xirgender clowns

[Anonymous No.15869659]

>>15841692
did they make this game? does it have an engine? name every member?

[Anonymous No.15871559]

>>15866606
oy vey stop noticing

[Anonymous No.15871886]

>>15842150
Conservapedia

[Anonymous No.15872399]

>>15864950
>encyclopediadramatica is free for anyone to edit.
anyone except steesatsu

[Anonymous No.15872562]

>The pot is not reliable!
Thanks, kettle

[Anonymous No.15872714]

>>15842150
If you're bilingual than using the Wikipedia of a different language is an option.
Even if it is also bad just being able to cross-reference two Wikipedias cuts out a lot of the bias.

[Anonymous No.15872757]

But why don't we have a substitute? What's the solution?

When Wiki started, search engines were crude. Today if you want to know when a movie came out, you just google it and it will show up and link you to the cast. This sort of basic knowledge is being answered by the search engine.

I don't think it's possible to create an encyclopedia with zero bias, but I admire the attempt made by wikipedia to be this open. It's an old problem, if you allow everyone in, it turns to rubbish, if you curate it too much, you take a stance and the process becomes slower, more expensive and more complex it is to deal with when it comes to controversial matters.

[Anonymous No.15872781]

>>15872757
There is no solution because any website that requires people to back up everything they write using independent sources will skew very quickly towards having a "liberal bias". It's the reason reactionary conspiratards instead stick to places like this, where there are zero standards.

[Anonymous No.15872987]

>>15872781
Only option is to train an ai to spot these biases and have it automatically flag these it with „more citations needed“ or whatever. If you have an old wikipedia archive you can probably train a very simple one relatively easily.

[Anonymous No.15872996]

>>15872987
>AIs aren't biased

[Anonymous No.15873041]

>>15841692
It's fine for anything that isn't controversial
Also switching to another language like Russian gives less globohomo takes

[Anonymous No.15873135]

>>15872714
I just translate the Russian wiki

[Anonymous No.15873160]

>not using multiple sources

How is this still not understood by everyone yet?

[Anonymous No.15873520]

>>15872781
>i hate 4chan
why are you here?

[Anonymous No.15873578]

>>15873041
>>15873135
Russian users are IP banned from editing Russian wikipedia. All of the edits come from NATO countries just like the English wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.15873680]

>>15873520
Habit

[Anonymous No.15873994]

wikipedia is a manipulative political propaganda outlet, not a source of real information

[Anonymous No.15874006]

>>15873994
unlike 4chan

[Anonymous No.15874016]

>>15841692
Wikipedia is great to get a quick summary of random shit that doesn't connect to any current political events or anything else you can make money from lying about. But if anyone can make money by lying about a topic, no matter how banal the topic, then that topic will be lied about on wikipedia 100% of the time.

[Anonymous No.15874115]

>>15841692 (OP)
>>15874016
It's also not wikipedia's fault. Towers of babel always fall by their own weight. Same thing with google.

[Anonymous No.15874233]

>>15860553
Of course the solution to that is for conservatives to get actual degrees (i.e. not from PragerU) and publish research that survives peer review. But it's easier seething on Twitter, so these LARPing twinks would rather do that.

[Anonymous No.15874262]

>>15874233
That's not really a solution lol. We all know that history is a big lie. The only "solution" is to always keep shitting on the most successful liars.

[Anonymous No.15874275]

>>15874016
The basic stuff in physics and math is ok

[Anonymous No.15874290]

>>15874233
Peer review was implemented in the 60s to prevent that from happening.

[Anonymous No.15874298]

>>15874275
Yes, until it can be lied about to make money for someone or some group of people. For example, this "supplement" to Benford's law. Fucking lol.
>Benford's law has also been misapplied to claim election fraud. When applying the law to Joe Biden's election returns for Chicago, Milwaukee, and other localities in the 2020 United States presidential election, the distribution of the first digit did not follow Benford's law. The misapplication was a result of looking at data that was tightly bound in range, which violates the assumption inherent in Benford's law that the range of the data be large. The first digit test was applied to precinct-level data, but because precincts rarely receive more than a few thousand votes or fewer than several dozen, Benford's law cannot be expected to apply. According to Mebane, "It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds."[46][47]

[Anonymous No.15874865]

[Anonymous No.15875025]

>>15874290
No, peer review wasn't implemented to prevent science from adapting to new evidence.

[Anonymous No.15875678]

>>15874865
>benford's law
That was quickly wiped. This argument was amusing:
>It is not notable. It is trivia. Constant314 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

[Anonymous No.15876039]

>>15875025
yes it was, peer review was implemented to insure that social and political pressure was dominant over evidence

[Anonymous No.15876765]

>>15875678
That article was revised 7 times in October 2020 and over 100 in November

[Anonymous No.15876862]

>>15864070
>You can't conceive of giving a "high-five" with someone else by only having three fingers extended and two fingers contracted; you can't conceive of a "dozen" eggs in a carton only being a count of 10 eggs, and you surely can't conceive of writing the number "eight" as 10
Also can't conceive of calling a man she and her yet here we are, filled in a world with journalists and activists trying to change language to accommodate a change nobody sane advocates for.
Controlling language can be advantageous. If it was really just started by caesar there is a good chance most people made fun of that change while their kids got indoctrinated in the new system and called their parents boomerii for not using the new system

[Anonymous No.15877579]

>>15874865
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
Friendly reminder that /pol/tards are always, 100% consistently wrong about everything.

[Anonymous No.15878011]

[Anonymous No.15878025]

>>15874298
uhm you're only allowed to do math when it follows ESG guidelines and my niche political ideas ok??!

[Anonymous No.15878246]

>>15876862
you're attempting to claim ancient rome was even more of a clown world than our modern world, that if genders could mean different things, so could numbers.

you provided a lol-lmao interpretation but numbers are pretty necessary.

[Anonymous No.15878275]

>>15863903
what do you mean she didn't do anything important, Source?

[Anonymous No.15878729]

>>15878275

[Anonymous No.15878748]

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q111437117

[Anonymous No.15878860]

The american public servants claimed Optiver manipulated some financial market.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-optiver-settlement/high-frequency-trader-optiver-pays-14-million-in-oil-manipulation-case-idUSBRE83J01220120420/
===
"Manipulative schemes like ‘banging the close' harm market integrity, and false and misleading statements to exchange officials to cover tracks obstruct the investigative process."

Optiver, which neither admitted nor denied the CFTC's allegations as is common in settlement cases, said it was "pleased to put this matter behind it".

The settlement bars traders Christopher Dowson, Randal Meijer and Bastiaan van Kempen from trading commodities for eight years, four years and two years, respectively. Two of the three defendants have since left the firm.

The order also limits the entire company from trading U.S. oil futures in the three minutes prior to the market close for the next two years.
===

[Anonymous No.15878863]

>>15878860

and yet the wikipedia which lists some chronological events doesn't mention this:
===
Optiver was founded by Johann Kaemingk on April 9, 1986, as a market maker in options on the European Options Exchange (EOE), which is now Euronext.[4] Optiver is a member of the European Principal Traders Association (FIA EPTA), FIA Principal Trading Group (PTG) in the US and FIA Japan.[5]

In November 2016, Optiver was reported to have joined a consortium to build a faster data transmission network between Chicago and Tokyo.[6]

In December 2017, Optiver joined with Equiduct to offer a one-stop shop for best execution.[7]

In November 2018, Utrecht University and Optiver partnered to create an Algorithms in Finance course.[8]

In June 2019, Optiver joined its US-based rival, Virtu, in funding Equiduct, a competitor to national stock exchanges and trading venues.[9]

In April 2021, Optiver expanded further into the Asia-Pacific region with an office in Singapore, with a planned focus on commodity and equity products. It joined many other major financial services firms in doing so. The firm first made its presence in the region in Australia in 1996, then Taipei in 2005, then Hong Kong in 2007, and then Shanghai in 2012.[10]

In June 2022, Optiver joined Aquis Exchange.[11]

In September 2022, the firm became the latest trading member on the Vienna Stock Exchange.[12]
==

[Anonymous No.15878864]

The biggest editor at wikipedia is an american bureaucrat LOL


Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and written 35,000 original articles. It's earned him not only accolades but almost legendary status on the internet. The online encyclopedia now boasts more than 5.7 million articles in English and millions more translated into other languages -- all written by online volunteers. Pruitt was named one of the most influential people on the internet by Time magazine in part because one-third of all English language articles on Wikipedia have been edited by Steven. An incredible feat, ignited by a fascination with his own history.

How much money does he make from his work? None. "The idea of making it all free fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union ... So I'm very conscious of what, what it can mean to make knowledge free, to make information free," he said. Pulling from books, academic journals and other sources, he spends more than three hours a day researching, editing and writing. Even his day job is research, working in records and information at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He joked that his colleagues probably think he's nuts. To put in to perspective what it took for Pruitt to become the top editor, he's been dedicating his free time to the site for 13 years. The second-place editor is roughly 900,000 edits behind him, so his first place status seems safe, for now.

[Anonymous No.15879161]

>>15878864
>he spends more than three hours a day researching, editing and writing
Now add the hours for politics and reverting what others wrote.

[Anonymous No.15879870]

>>15878864
>How much money does he make from his work? None.
Just because wikipedia isn't paying him doesn't mean nobody is paying him. 4chan has jannies who work "for free" while they are paid staff for the Democratic Party, so the Democrats are paying them to be 4chan jannies.

[Anonymous No.15879920]

>>15856210
Kek.

[Anonymous No.15880616]

Lyrics excerpt from Moonman's "49 faggots and one dune coon" which memorializes the Pulse nightclub shooting

All you see are lies on TV,
But you know you can believe if you hear it from me.
False flags, false claims on the internet too,
And the mouthpiece behind it are always guess who?
You can't trust the mainstream media
Undeniable they're less reliable than Wikipedia

Full song here
https://files.catbox.moe/pxca3b.m4v

[Anonymous No.15882362]

>>15880616
thats a good song

[Anonymous No.15882460]

>>15852968
>>15856194
>literally anything
>DA JOOOOOOOS DA JOOS DID IT DA JOOS ARE UP TO SOMETHING
you people ruin any chance of things getting better. Wikipedia is in a state

[Anonymous No.15882705]

>>15878748
I can't believe she doesn't have her own page yet, good thing someone is working on it

[Anonymous No.15882713]

There's some kind of partnership with universities where a lot of the gender studies/intersectional studies courses give credit for student articles. There's another related movement trying to bring the number of female scientist articles up to 50%

[Anonymous No.15883509]

>>15841692
use it only for information on objective reality

[Anonymous No.15883898]

>Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger takes on Wikipedia with new website: Encyclosphere.org, a universal network of encyclopaedias. "No small group of elites deserves the power to declare what is known for all of us."

[Anonymous No.15883951]

>>15841692
I agree with this, but doesn't that mean that on un-politicized topics the site is still reliable?

[Anonymous No.15883969]

>>15883951
No, it means that those topics have been approved by the political editors and that all topics those editors disapprove of have been intentionally omitted, hidden or otherwise denigrated.

[Anonymous No.15883976]

>>15863699
>This is why I and nobody else gives a fuck about your plight.
What plight??
>You’re dishonest and an all around fucking faggot when asked to substantiate your claims.
You are confused, there are more than one other person here. in fact so far we have no less than 76 posters. To be clear: I am >>15856339 and >>15856194 but I am not OP or >>15852968.
>Kind of ironic to hate jews
I do not. You are making things up.
>for being deceptive
That is a bit racist of you, stereotyping people like that.
>and then be a shifty little retard
The projection is strong in this one.
I have no idea who you are but I know you have no idea what I think. My issue is Wikipedia, not about Jews. You have erected a nasty little strawman, set fire to it and is now dancing around the bonfire. I am not impressed.

[Anonymous No.15884837]

>>15883976
>I am >>15856339 and >>15856194 but I am not OP or >>15852968.
Big of you to confess to that, your posts only got 3 (you)s while >>15852968 got 6 and OP got dozens so far

[Anonymous No.15884841]

>>15856210
>>15863699
Look at this kike.
You need to suck some blood off a schmeckle. Your persecution complex is because you deserve it.

[Anonymous No.15884880]

>>15851191
Or how the Leo Frank page establishes the alleged consensus belief of Leo's innocence by citing a summary of a book and a CNN article. 2 sources by literally who is consensus.

[Anonymous No.15884881]

Heres a fine recent example of how politically slanted everything on Wikipedia is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Dublin_riot
>On 23 November 2023, at approximately 13:40 GMT,[4] a five-year-old girl and a woman in her 30s were seriously injured after being stabbed outside the Irish language-medium primary school Gaelscoil Choláiste Mhuire in Parnell Square East, Dublin.[9][4][10] The woman was later identified as a school care assistant who tried to shield the children from the attacker with her body.[11] The seriously injured girl was treated at the CHI Temple Street. A six-year-old girl and five-year-old boy were also stabbed, sustaining less serious injuries.[9][12] The boy was later discharged from the CHI at Crumlin hospital.[13]

>The assailant was stopped on Parnell Street by Caio Benicio, a Brazilian driver for a food delivery company.

They go to pains to avoid mentioning the ethnicity of the attacker, but they immediately highlight the foreign born nature of the bystander that stepped in to stop the shitskins stabbing spree.

Never once did they mention that if Ireland had no immigrants then here have been no need for the Brazilian's actions

Later on in the article Wikipedia quotes communist's political organizations' complaints about the supposed violence of the pro-Irish demonstrators activities (in which there were no injuries) while completely ignoring complaints about the shitskin perpetrator who stabbed five people to death.

So clearly Wikipedia has an anti-white, anti-European bias, which is of course part of the larger white genocide agenda.

[Anonymous No.15884895]

>>15884881
Guess they really are just parroting the media. Has any (((reputable source))) published the ethnicity of the attacker yet? Cause my nation refuses to. I'm collecting a list of weasel words they use to describe such assailants nowadays.

[Anonymous No.15884901]

>>15884881
>They go to pains to avoid mentioning the ethnicity of the attacker
they don't "go to pains", they simply don't mention it.
also
>we wuz europeans n shiet
shut the fuck up, you demented, obsessed mutt.

[Anonymous No.15885238]

>>15884837
>your posts only got 3 (you)s while
This is 4cha where the count of (you)s is entirely irrelevant. There are other places moer suited for people like you.

[Anonymous No.15885249]

>>15885238
>moer
its moar, newfag

[Anonymous No.15885264]

>>15841692
Wikipedia should still be alright when it comes to physics and maths. I don't see how they could have perverted those topics the same way they did with humanities. You can't really go on a hissyfit about white supremacy and patriarchy when talking about equations, I don't think.

[Anonymous No.15885267]

>>15885249
I'm pretty sure that was just a typo of more.

[Anonymous No.15885404]

>>15878729
honestly, that room likes miserable
>no natural sunlight
>shitty white paint that'll probably yellow over time because the university/research lab are cheap
>cramped together on a table too small.
>schizo writing on the blackboard because no one bothered to use the eraser
>women and balding men
are these really the work conditions of astronomers? I thought they made the big bucks in the world of physics.

[Anonymous No.15886189]

>>15841692
>wikipedia? Nah my pede brother. For me, it's 0hedge. Shadilay!

[Anonymous No.15886192]

>>15841692
Good, once chuds like you stop using Wikipedia, they'll become even dumber than they already were, making them easier to neutralize

[Anonymous No.15886641]

>>15885264
sure you can

[Anonymous No.15887230]

I use it for objevtive science (aka Physics, Chemistry, Botany) and distant history that is so far in the past that it has no political comparisions to the modern day.
The more niche, old, and harder to relate to politics the better.

[Anonymous No.15887240]

>>15887230
>and distant history that is so far in the past that it has no political comparisions to the modern day.
no such thing. history from biblical times and before is still politically relevant in the present. and the depictions of those histories in wikipedia have all been altered to fit the political goals of the wikipedia editors either consciously or via their unconscious biases.

[Anonymous No.15887560]

>>15878864
>Steven Pruitt
let me guess, fat, four-eyed, dresses like a clown, ugly hair

[Anonymous No.15887857]

>>15841692
Wikipedia is the greatest website ever created

[Anonymous No.15887871]

>>15842150
metapedia dot org

[Anonymous No.15888976]

>>15842150
https://encyclopediadramatica.online/Sci/

[Anonymous No.15889695]

>>15888976
encyclopediadramatica is unironically more truthful, reliable and accurate than wikipedia, they've been spreading the truth about wikipedia for a long time.
https://encyclopediadramatica.online/Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.15890644]

[Anonymous No.15891333]

>>15890644
That pretty much proves that cultural marxists run wikipedia and that they're jewish

[Anonymous No.15891631]

>>15863903
Retard.

[Anonymous No.15891634]

>>15841692
Huh, German wikipedia seems fine for the most part. They're pretty honest about Nazis back then being hyper intelligent and Hitler not ordering any genocide etc.

[Anonymous No.15891647]

>>15852968
Edith wara are a thing. Look at Daniele Ganser's page. They're trying to portray him as a schizo without any sources.

[Anonymous No.15891648]

Wikpedia is a fantastic reference source. If you're getting all butthurt about bias it's almost certainly because you're a retard using it for the wrong things.

[Anonymous No.15891681]

>>15841828

Moreover, since Materialism is a tenet of the Catholic Church (the Pharisees) the whole reality principle is likewise fabricated.

[Anonymous No.15891720]

>>15873578
Are they? Why and source plz.

[Anonymous No.15892365]

>>15853265
source for this article?

[Anonymous No.15892391]

>>15841692
Good thing I'm german since german wikipedia is actually useful

[Anonymous No.15892402]

>>15892391
No difference.

[Anonymous No.15892639]

[Anonymous No.15893453]

>>15884880
Leo Frank was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death.

[Anonymous No.15893968]

>>15864070
The Wikipedia article for "New Year" isn't very consistent on what date New Year's Day fell in Europe in pre-modern times.

[Anonymous No.15894532]

>>15893968
Having Christmas be the start of the new year makes the most sense, since time is measured in years since the birth of Jesus

[Anonymous No.15895303]

>>15880616
good song
long live moonman

[Anonymous No.15895317]

>>15842150

All encyclopedias are going to have problems, it is the nature of condensing so much information into a (relatively) short text. Your best bet in general, is to go to area-specific ones where the articles are written by experts in the field. These tend to be - not accessible online legally because they are print books or made for libraries but these are going to be the best. The more general the work, the more errors will creep in. Nothing is free of bias because that is the nature of humanity and the things we create, but if your goal is just to avoid errors, this is the best course. But modern encyclopedias are not meant to be your main source of information, they are meant to be - intros, or references.

[Anonymous No.15895321]

>>15845832

While I see people sucking off Chatgpts "knowledge" I have never seen it actually do well, you are getting the same information that is easily found online just it is filtered through its awkward writing so you've just gotten lazier I'd say anon.

[Anonymous No.15895775]

Which of the public domain editions of Britannica is the best and most reliable? The 11th is too woke, I've read some of its articles, and didn't like it.

[Anonymous No.15896745]

[Anonymous No.15896817]

>>15896745
do the same for chinese wiki

[Anonymous No.15897551]

[Anonymous No.15897653]

[Anonymous No.15898826]

>>15897653
>thats just a conspiracy theory
>t. wikipedia

[Anonymous No.15898918]

>>15841692
You troglodytes:
1. are retarded
2.didn't read the article
3. are double retarded if you think the CIA controls the Wikipedia page on something like economics

The evidence in the article only partly suggests that CIA totalitarian brainrot topics like the origin of Covid19 were manipulated, not anything outside of that and then the article cites a generalization by the holocaust denier Jew outlet to generalize it to all of Wikipedia. Be smarter /sci/

[Anonymous No.15898929]

>>15884841
>dey wuz accuzed deyfowe dey did dun it
The absolute state of wh*Te "people"

[Anonymous No.15898930]

>>15841692
If Wikipedia is ruled by the woke left then why don't they censor this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

[Anonymous No.15898958]

>>15893968
Poorly written as that is, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies. I'm afraid you might just be retarded.

[Anonymous No.15898971]

>>15842259
>I don't understand it so the article music be wrong.
the numbers in Roman month names refer to their number starting from March, the first month of the Roman year BEFORE they changed it to January. October was the eighth month when they named it, kept the old names when they altered the calendar which they did many times.

but what would I expect from a guy who cares about astrology

[Anonymous No.15899002]

>>15898930
Look at the talk and history for the page and you'll find out that they did. Events which are too famous to be covered up are massaged so that their details reflect well on the status quo position.

[Anonymous No.15899547]

>>15852968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-it-all

a lot of wikipedia's tells are given away by the information they choose to exclude

[Anonymous No.15900468]

>>15864070
>you can't conceive of a "dozen" eggs in a carton only being a count of 10 eggs
What about a baker's dozen tho

[Anonymous No.15900481]

>>15841692
It is a known fact that government agencies post on 4chan, and 4chan doesn't even have a standard of verifiability. If you want to argue that wikipedia shouldn't be used because it's unreliable yet continue to come here, you are either ignorant and naïve, or you have an ulterior motive in getting people to read what's posted here instead of there.

[Anonymous No.15900777]

>wanted to see pictures of frogs
>went through list of IUCN endangered/extinct frogs
>almost 85% of the list has no pictures of the frogs

bickabebia let me down

[Anonymous No.15901101]

[Anonymous No.15901132]

>>15899002
>Removed the word hoax. There is no proof that their opinions are a hoax.
Does this editor mean to say that even though the papers were invalid, the views that these papers represent remain unfalsified? That's beyond hilarious.

[Anonymous No.15901430]

[Anonymous No.15901564]

Attacking wikipedia is a form of antisemitism because it's an integral aspect of the antisemitic lifestyle

[Anonymous No.15901880]

[Anonymous No.15901999]

>>15901880
If the free market is so good then why don't free market lovers either sit back and wait until the unbalanced views of wikipedia are corrected or participate in the competition? There's Wiki PR: so what? Let the based and the woke outbid eachother in the auction house of funding propaganda. Darwinism when you're winning and altruism when you're losing. What is the independent standard that determines whether or not a view is balanced?

[Anonymous No.15902096]

>>15901101
Wow, if only someone had written four articles explaining the socio-historical context behind these terms!

[Anonymous No.15902497]

>>15898958
>>15893968
most of the month names in old latin had numbers associated with their names.

Quintilis - quint - 5th month
Sextilis - sex - 6th month
September - sept - 7th month
October - oct - 8th month
November - no - 9th month
December - dec - 10th month

our modern calendar still has September, October, November, and December. Keep in mind, the original ancient roman calendar only had 10 months, where January and February had yet to be invented.

That march was the beginning of the year in most cultures is also protected in the traditional names of the Japanese months in the Japanese calendar, Even though there is such strong evidence to suggest that ancient Japan didn't have much if any contact with the west prior to a few hundred years ago.
Even without understanding Japanese, it's possible to determine this by simple pattern recognition:

弥生 yayoi - March
卯月 uzuki - April
皐月 satsuki - May
水無月 minazuki - June
文月 fumizuki - July
葉月 hazuki - August
長月 nagatsuki - September
神無月 kannazuki - October
霜月 shimotsuki - November
師走 shiwasu - December
睦月 mutsuki - January
如月 kisaragi - February

All the Japanese months besides March and December end with the generic filler zuki/tsuki 月 month symbol.
March has a unique appearance as 弥生, and December has a unique appearance as 師走.
Of useful interpretation is understanding that Yayoi/March is affiliated with new beginnings:
弥生
弥 = increasingly
生 = fresh/natural/life
and Shiwasu/December is affiliated with rushing, evocatively of tying up loose ends before the next year begins
師走
師 = religious leaders
走 = run
It's easy to see that even the Japanese had once understood possibly even the same 10 month calendar system, and then arbitrarily adopted 2 more months to add onto the list, given March was the beginning and December was the end too.

The presentation of the history of the past on wikipedia is false.

[Anonymous No.15902819]

Anyone who takes Wikipedia at face value on a serious topic is retarded. They have links to literally everything that is on there and you should go read the references and then decide if their references have credibility. If it doesn't have a reference it's safe to say it was written by someone who's pushing something.
If that's too much work for you then you are lazy and deserve to be deceived. I only feel bad for anyone who has to deal with you.

[Anonymous No.15902829]

>>15902096
Had they done so fairly, there would be no problem. But instead they chose to be racists.

[Anonymous No.15902834]

>>15902819
Do you live alone innawoods? If not, you yourself have to deal with them. Only a retard would nonchalantly dismiss the problem of literally everyone around him being indoctrinated and deceived.

[Anonymous No.15902938]

>>15902829
They have done so fairly, you just don't like fair treatment.

[Anonymous No.15902942]

>>15902497
>It's easy to see that even the Japanese had once understood possibly even the same 10 month calendar system, and then arbitrarily adopted 2 more months to add onto the list, given March was the beginning and December was the end too.
Right, and then you end up with what we have now. And the rest is history. Precisely as presented on wikipedia. You're giving an example of the same adjustment happening in another culture as evidence that it could not have happened in this one.

What's it to you, anyway? Cui bono? What's the big first-month-conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.15902943]

>>15902819
What's wild is that people conclude that it's too much work, just avoid the website altogether, and then instead go to a place where people just claim the wildest shit with no references at all. Because if there's nothing to check it's no effort to believe it, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.15903625]

>>15902943
being an infantile sissy slave to authority is cucked,
having self confidence and relying on your own intuition is based.

[Anonymous No.15903631]

>>15902942
Need you be reminded that March is the 1st month and December is the 10th, where January and February are the 11th and 12th.

Whatever you're talking about doesn't make sense, because it wasn't referencing the few short posts in the reply chain.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, as conspiracy requires conspiring, and there is no intelligent being which would have conspired to make self-evident obvious lies that could be easily discovered and corrected.

What's it to you that January should be the first month? Once you start believing one lie, you're just as well known to have a busted lie detector, and lies are all you will be fed.

[Anonymous No.15903643]

>>15902497
>arbitrarily adopted
The usefulness of the 30/12/360 axis of days, months, and years is one of the most axiomatic of ancient historical traditions within astrologically oriented societies. The Chinese even extended the synergy to having 12 astrological years in a cycle. It's likely that 12-month years took over in Japan due to the influence of Chinese zodiacal traditions.

[Anonymous No.15903660]

this universe was created in a moment on July 24th, 2021. In an instant, it expanded faster than the speed of light, populating not only the present, but the past, and the future too, with information.
The universe didn't begin 13 billion years ago.
It began 2 years ago.

[Anonymous No.15904138]

>>15903660
Thats all well and good, but where are all the aliens !?

[Anonymous No.15904178]

>>15902938
They chose to be racists. As did you. You just don't like the realisation that you're a racist, a bigot, a liar, and, above all, a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.15904350]

https://youtu.be/c_Q7reJtiLU
https://youtu.be/2QbiyP8zdFg
https://youtu.be/5RezztNNdX0
https://youtu.be/kiRgJYMw6YA

[Anonymous No.15904368]

>>15841692
agreed

[Anonymous No.15904877]

>>15903625
If only you could tell the difference.

[Anonymous No.15904880]

>>15903631
So your idea is that history is falsified in entirely inconsequential ways to "test the water" so to speak? And somehow the "obvious lie" persists which would require either stupidity or malice on a massive scale.

Alternatively, one anonymous rando doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

[Anonymous No.15904895]

>>15902497
Since we're talking names: the likely origin of the name "January" is Janus, the God of new beginnings. So a Roman would've recognised December as "the tenth month" but at the same time would've recognised January as "the first month". How can those things be reconciled?

When the Romans were on a ten-month system, it is likely they regarded the winter period between December and March to be extracalendary. So January is probably newer, along with February, added onto an existing ten-month system. Perhaps because the Romans recognised that this period could also be divided same as the rest of the year to make it easier to reackon, and perhaps they had already started to assign some significance to this part of the year (February is named after rites of purification). Why did they keep the names of the old months? Probably just convenience, if you ask me. Seems to me that if you're going to introduce a new system, you do it after the year ends, so after December. So December had to remain last.

[Anonymous No.15904899]

>>15904178
No, Anon. You would understand this if you'd actually read the articles. I mean, I could explain the socio-historical context to you here, which I referred to before, but it would be a bit redundant, wouldn't it, seeing as the articles you're bitching about do exactly that. And if you're allergic to reading, then don't pretend to be offended by something you didn't read.

[Anonymous No.15904908]

>>15904895
Actually, turns out February was considered last for a while:
>January and February were the last two months to be added to the Roman calendar, since the Romans originally considered winter a monthless period. They were added by Numa Pompilius about 713 BC. February remained the last month of the calendar year until the time of the decemvirs (c. 450 BC), when it became the second month.
I read that on wikipedia.

Probably the common folk had a good laugh about the twelth month being Month Ten, but what can you do in the end, it's politics.

[Anonymous No.15905062]

>>15842150

You can use non-english versions of Wikipedia

Also here are just a few alternatives to Wikipediapedia that exist:

> www (|D.0;T|} britannica (|D.0;T|} com - Generic but high qu a|ity encyclopedia
> encyclopedia (|D.0;T|} com - G()()d qu a|ity encyclopedia
> fandom (|D.0;T|} com - A lot of wikis dedicated to small things (usually more a lot more relevant than Wikipedia)
> citizendium (|D.0;T|} org - Higher qu ality Wikipedia (Do not use this one sucks and has a very small number of articles)
> knowyourmeme (|D.0;T|} com - A wiki dedicated to internet memes
> www (|D.0;T|} scholarpedia(|D.0;T|}org - High qu a|ity science encyclopedia
> www (|D.0;T|} metapedia (|D.0;T|} org - Politically incorrect Wikipedia
> encyclopediadramatica (|D.0;T|} online - The edgy little brother of knowyourmeme
> wiki (|D.0;T|} basedjak (|D.0;T|} party (|$|4$H|} Main_Page - Basedjack wiki
> www (|D.0;T|} sciencemadness (|D.0;T|} org (|$|4$H|} smwiki (|$|4$H|} index (|D.0;T|} php (|$|4$H|} Main_Page - Encyclopedia for DIY science
> wikispooks (|D.0;T|} com - Tinfoilhatpedia
> pantheon (|D.0;T|} org - Encyclopedia Mythica
> rationalwiki (|D.0;T|} org - Reddit SJW encyclopedia
> www (|D.0;T|} conservapedia (|D.0;T|} com - Boomer conservatism Wikipedia
> wikiindex (|D.0;T|} org - Encyclopedia of encyclopedias
> www (|D.0;T|} infoplease (|D.0;T|} com - Informatic thing

You can also add them as search engines with firefox or use duckduckgos shebangs for the ones that can't be added

Also extension to make some paid science studies available for fr€€
> unpaywall (|D.0;T|} org

Fucking anti-spam fucks up everything

[Anonymous No.15905182]

>>15904895
>>15904908
the extra day of a leap year is added onto the end of february. in a system where february is the 12th and final month of a year, it's completely logical that an extra day would be added onto the end of the year, rather than at any other point within the year. If you make a list of 4 things, and decide to later add a 5th thing onto the list, the list would logically look like
>#1: first item
>#2: second item
>#3: third item
>#4: fourth item
>#5:
What would be less logical is attempting to add that 5th thing into the list, between the other things
>#1: first item
>#2: second item
>#5:
>#3: third item
>#4: fourth item

in the current system, the extra day is instead seemingly arbitrarily injected 1/6th the way through the year at the end of february, the 2nd month.

>>15904880
>would require either stupidity or malice on a massive scale
stupidity.
Again, there's no conspiracy, as conspiracy requires conspiring.

>So your idea is that history is falsified in entirely inconsequential ways to "test the water" so to speak?
Who said anything about it being inconsequential? People are so stupid that they can't even draw the connection between the month names and a numerical system on their own, needlessly taking for granted that the month names are proper names like John or George, unrelated to any other category of words besides identifying names. Is it supposed to be inconsequential what any individual or mass of people consider to be true or defacto?

It's one thing for the months to be in a fucking retarded order, it's another thing for the reasoning behind that order being completely fabricated and intentionally lied about (not malice, but stupidity in the inability to project to the future to understand the punishment outcome for lying). It's even more shitty things to come to terms with the fact modern technology isn't manifested by humanity, or even that there is no true speed of light; or that medicine doesn't work.

Lies everywhere.

[Anonymous No.15905201]

>>15905182
Could you explain where you think this lie originated and who was the originator and why?

The official answer is that a bunch of Roman officials decided to start the year in January rather than March. Your story is that it happened some time after the Romans. Either way, though, the start of the year is arbitrary, our calendar is an abstraction of a natural cycle with no actual beginning or end within human memory, why is it so hard to accept that the Romans fucked with the calendar at some point like they were known to do all the fucking time anyway? Like, we have ancient records about this. Were they falsified? When? By whom? How long do you think this has been going on?

>completely fabricated and intentionally lied about (not malice, but stupidity in the inability to project to the future to understand the punishment outcome for lying)
What "consequence" is there for lying about the order of the months and who has faced it, you monomaniacal schizo?

[Anonymous No.15905263]

>>15905201
NTA but if you want to understand how the Medieval people thought about calendars you should read Bede's "The Reckoning of Time." He mentions that the Germanics had a 12 month calendar with December as the last month because it contained the solstice and the solstice was important to them to mark the passage of winter.

[Anonymous No.15905320]

>>15901999
Why do you think wikipedia is free market?

[Anonymous No.15905327]

>>15904899
>the socio-historical context
homosexual

[Anonymous No.15905956]

its insane that there are actually still people who don't realize wikipedia is a slanted propaganda outlet

[Anonymous No.15905959]

>>15841692
In 1st year of university back in 2006 they literally told us Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source of information. Have you been actually taking it seriously all this time?

[Anonymous No.15905971]

>>15904899
You single out a race and justify your hatred of it with "but this race is especially abhorrent, this race deserves all the hate, there are reasons why I hate them". You're a racist. Plain and simple. I don't get why you even bother arguing against this. There is literally nothing you could say anymore to make anyone believe otherwise. At this point, I guess you're just trying to convince yourself that you're not a racist. But you are. Accept it. And do better.

[Anonymous No.15906148]

BREAKING NEWS ON THE TOPIC OF EXACTLY WHO IS EDITING THE SCIENCE ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA

[Anonymous No.15906229]

>>15905971
>You single out a race and justify your hatred of it with "but this race is especially abhorrent, this race deserves all the hate, there are reasons why I hate them".
You are projecting. I don't hate anyone. I haven't mentioned hating one. The articles aren't about hating people (the one about white pride is about people who hate other people). You are being wilfully ignorant here. The explanation is right there. Go on. Knowledge is at your finger tips.

[Anonymous No.15906235]

>>15906148
If he is able to do that then that must indicate he has sources agreeing with him and a lack of sources disagreeing with him. You, however, aren't posting any sources as all, so this may all just be a fable for all we know. You are also implying that if someone were to deliberately edit misinformation into wikipedia that absolutely nothing will be done about that. Frankly, I don't even give a shit about your attempt at poisoning the well with "liberal arts assistant professor" (what, you all have degrees in the things you claim to be experts about here?). Even if it's true it simply one anecdote that deliberately ignores the built-in ways that wikipedia has to come to a consensus, and has had from the start, as a very concept.

[Anonymous No.15906294]

>>15906235
>agreeing with him
Easy, just decide rags like the Guardian is credible, and cite that.
>and a lack of sources disagreeing with him
Easy, just decide that all sources that disagree are deemed not reliable.
See? It is so easy.

[Anonymous No.15906329]

>>15906294
Methinks you're just a teensy tiny bit salty that the comments section of traditionaltruthwarrior dot blog isn't considered a credible source

[Anonymous No.15906331]

>>15906229
Oh I see, you're merely singling out a race in an extremely unfavourable light and justifying it with the most well-meaning and erudite arguments. You could write whole books about why this race deserves it. In fact, you most surely have done just that. You're oh so very civilised and tasteful in your disdain.

Or, you know...

Just a big old racist.

[Anonymous No.15906333]

>>15906331
My only disdain is for a disingenuous little sophist who refuses to read yet complains endlessly about things he doesn't read.

For the record, the reason that "white pride" isn't received the way comparable slogans are is due to its historical association with racist movements. As you can see, there is nothing inherently racist about a given combination of words. It's about context. Now, are you going to dismiss that again as "justifying racism"? Of course you are, because you are exactly everything you're pretending I am.

[Anonymous No.15906334]

>>15906331
>>15906333
By the way, do you believe that black lives matter?

[Anonymous No.15906340]

>>15906333
I wonder what makes you so blind to your own racism. Is hatred of whites so central to your identity that it's simply impossible to let go of it? Is your feeling of having infallible moral character so central to your character that you can't admit that you're a hypocrite? If I can take a text you've written and replace the the word "white" with the word "Jew", it would often be grossly antisemitic, I'm sure. Replace it with "black", and it'd be grossly racist. What is the conclusion? The text itself is grossly racist. You're a racist. That is all. I could respect your views at least somewhat if you just had the spine to admit that simple fact.

[Anonymous No.15906344]

>>15906334
I'm sure every black life matters to at least someone.

[Anonymous No.15906350]

>>15906344
first good take i've seen on this entire cite, /pol has really fucked with my mental

[Anonymous No.15906358]

>>15906340
Am I blind to my racism or are you seeing things that aren't there? I'm going for the secret third option: you know what a dishonest little shit you're being.
> If I can take a text you've written and replace the the word "white" with the word "Jew", it would often be grossly antisemitic, I'm sure. Replace it with "black", and it'd be grossly racist.
A text I've written? Me, personally? Go ahead. Give it a shot. Ought to be good.

>>15906344
What an utter cop-out. And you're talking about spine?

[Anonymous No.15906364]

>>15906340
>>15906358
Actually, let's just stop beating around the bush:
Black lives do matter. You know this. I know that you know this. Anyone who is not egregiously and explicitly racist would acknowledge this, and at this point, even though you probably are egregiously racist, I'm sure you also realise what it would do to your credibility in this particular argument if you came out and revealed it. Why, then, did you avoid giving a straight answer? Probably because you are able to recognise that words derive their meaning from context, that the particular combination of words "black lives matter" is a political slogan used by specific groups, and you wish to avoid associating yourself with those groups, entirely regardless of the actual denotation of the phrase "black lives matter" (i.e., that black lives matter) or your opinion regarding black lives. Which means you actually understood what the fuck the whole point with "white pride" was all along and are simply pretending not to get it whilst making a huge performance of being ironically, hyperbolically, and unreasonably "anti-racist".

[Anonymous No.15906382]

>>15906358
I'm sure you'd agree that you've vehemently expressed your support for the claim that black pride is a slogan used by black supremacists to signal their racist viewpoints.

>>15906364
Does anything matter? I think things matter to people.

[Anonymous No.15906422]

>>15842150
Me

[Anonymous No.15906696]

>>15906329
No, I was not even aware of that blog. Instead I used to be a contributor (not editor) about 20 years ago but got tired of the drama queens.

[Anonymous No.15906904]

>>15906382
>I'm sure you'd agree that you've vehemently expressed your support for the claim that black pride is a slogan used by black supremacists to signal their racist viewpoints.
You see? When you switch around the words in my statements, you don't actually end up with something grossly racist. You just end up with something factually incorrect because it deliberately ignores historical context. Your claim is about as insightful as saying that if you replaced "Germans" with "British" then the sentence "the Germans lost WWII" would be very different.
>>15906382
>Does anything matter?
You don't

[Anonymous No.15907087]

>>15906148
(((portland, oregon)))

[Anonymous No.15907093]

>>15907087
Yeah, what an incredible coincidence that an entirely unsourced infographic just happens to confirm your biases, huh?

[Anonymous No.15907106]

>>15907093
GeneralRelative is some wordcel though; he does smear campaigns against legit science PhDs and stuff; you can creep him on wiki and figure it out

[Anonymous No.15907411]

>>15902834
Not everyone reads Wikipedia. I'm describing an issue that comes from surrounding yourself with people who accept things at face value. I am not a hermit. I just strive to surround myself with people who can think for a bit before accepting or rejecting an idea. I suggest you try this too.
The people out and about who are going to be deceived will be deceived with or without Wikipedia(people have believed random bullshit for millennia). I have to deal with them in every scenario. I can choose to limit the times I have to deal with them.
>>15902943
Or they see some sources from some random website and for whatever reason decide that it's better. Most news websites list authors. Most publication websites list authors. Most authors have publicly accessable pages. This stuff is out there and the opportunity to evaluate credibility is available. I think this is an appeal to authority though, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are obviously people more qualified than others to speak about a topic.

[Anonymous No.15907413]

>>15903625
No. There are obviously people who have more authority to speak on a subject than others. What's cucked is the inability to evaluate HOW MUCH authority someone has on a specific topic. That includes being able to evaluate your own authority and your own intuition vs what is actually going on in reality.

[Anonymous No.15907464]

>>15907413
not him but it is always retarded to uncritically believe and accept what someone says just because they have a position of authority.

[Anonymous No.15907474]

>>15907464
reminder that wikipedia editors are neither authorities who write peer-reviewed studies, nor are they journalists who report on the results of peer-reviewed studies. they are instead anons who report on what journalists say. at least according to wikipedia rules. thus they are the most cuckolded of them all

[Anonymous No.15907882]

>>15907474
wikipedia is written by idiots and for idiots

[Anonymous No.15908371]

>>15906904
"Historical context" is indeed a very useful phrase to rationalise and justify your racism. Just slap it anywhere, and your hypocrisy and hatred are immediately swept under the rug. In a more civilised age, they had to at least measure skulls. You only need to say the magic words.

Your example about Germans and British is of course preposterous: "White Pride is a movement encouraging people to take pride in being white" is still factually correct and would be a fair way to characterise the slogan on Wikipedia. Except racists like you are in charge, so they do something different. They turn white advocacy into white supremacy and whiteness into nazism, and indeed "white pride" into hate speech.

>>15906904
>You don't
Your racist hatred of my kind has been crystal clear for quite a while now, believe me. And you're wrong: I do matter to myself and a handful of others at least. You're good with words, but clearly not smart enough to actually understand them. Maybe that's why an actually innocuous statement filled you with rage, whereas real racism—correctly directed—does not move you one bit?

[Anonymous No.15908385]

>>15908371
He can't feel real discrimination, is a sociopath those things that don't become material loses for their material lives don't move them

[Anonymous No.15908405]

>>15905182
Why did you stop replying to piece of shit? that anon was asking legit questions and you pussied out when your schizo notion was actually questioned so you can keep, ironically, lying to yourself?

[Anonymous No.15908422]

>>15905182
Why did you stop replying you piece of shit? that anon was asking legit questions and you pussied out when your schizo notion was actually questioned, just so you can keep, ironically, lying to yourself?

[Anonymous No.15908428]

Anyway guys let's focus on what's important:
>Women are less likely to know how to operate a smartphone, navigate the internet, use social media and understand how to safeguard information in digital mediums
Of course based on self-reporting in Third World shitholes but no need to get in so much detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_digital_divide#cite_note-:0-1

[Anonymous No.15908431]

>>15908371
>my kind
Disingenuous racist sophists? You deserve to be hated.

[Anonymous No.15908433]

>>15908371
>"White Pride is a movement encouraging people to take pride in being white" is still factually correct and would be a fair way to characterise the slogan on Wikipedia.
It would not, in fact. Because that is factually not how the slogan is used.

[Anonymous No.15909086]

>>15908431
so you admit that you hate his kind while at the same time calling him disingenuous for pointing out that you hate his kind.
interesting collection of mutually exclusive realities you're carrying around in your head, no wonder you're upset, given you willfully inflict that large burden of cognitive dissonance on yourself.

[Anonymous No.15909176]

>NO YOU CANT USE WIKIPEDIA ITS NOT RELIABLE
>proceeds to quote/trust biased media outlet or facebook/twitter posts

It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the slop most people read or watch. Part of the anti-wikipedia may be academic publishers pushing down student throats that you must buy our book goy.

[Anonymous No.15909529]

>>15909086
>so you admit that you hate his kind while at the same time calling him disingenuous for pointing out that you hate his kind.
I am calling him and you disingenuous for deliberately conflating any insult to yourselves (as disingenuous twats) as an insult to the White Race. You're the little boys that cried anti-white racism, with an eagerness to play the victim that borders on desperation. You're doing it with me. You're doing it with wikipedia. It's frankly embarrassing.

Nice anti-white racist picture you got there btw

[Anonymous No.15909718]

>>15841692
i've read the same article on a particular subject, each time was modified in a worse way. like someone was hiding the subject

"new math" one

[Anonymous No.15909727]

>>15909718
Old version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040331010555/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math


Actual one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math

[Anonymous No.15909735]

>>15841789
I've done a ton of reading at times on Wikipedia and every group has their own stink when adding or removing. You can tell some people just want to make it simpler. Those people are just inherently negative but other people occasionally go on forever about something. Idk what it's called when it's like a dog whistle or it's got liberal stink like maybe a blue flag instead of red flag lol. But yeah you'll be reading an article, one that has anything at all to do with, say, women, and you're thinking this was just edited by a ton of women. But every page has a discussion and you can at least discuss things and most pages about controversial things have a half decent section about it.

[Anonymous No.15909741]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/451172512