Wikipedia is a source unless you're writing an academic paper or for Wikipedia. It's far more accurate than most news sites and for the most part immune to political bias, as the only way it can be biased is to exclude things but if you do then someone else will just add them in

I just showed that the source given went directly against what was being said in the comment

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

Except, it's really not. Your quote from the Wikipedia article is unsubstantiated conjecture with no source that supports the claim.

There's a reason Wikipedia isn't acceptable for academic papers: it's factually incorrect often enough to be a problem. It's specifically a problem for non-Western content because the vast majority of Wikipedia contributors speak English as their dominant (and often only) language and thus can only ever use English secondary or tertiary sources.

[–] autismdragon@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

for the most part immune to political bias

michael-laugh

There's a guy who has like 1/3 of the edits on Wikipedia who is an open anti-communist lol.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nice necromancy you been practicing?

[–] autismdragon@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Went to your profile, saw something I disagree with, posted because autism. shrug