The basis for the second article is that there is thousands of Nazis on Wikipedia, seemingly writing barely-challenged lies. The point of the second article is that Wikipedia has a nazi problem, which leads to it having a right-wing bias.
I don't believe it's some sinister plot by Wikipedia, but it is a fact that it is an issue wikipedia has. It is the downside to the "everyone is an editor" format which the site makes use of
You were being critiqued for use of Wikipedia, you defended Wikipedia as being neutral, I pointed out how it wasn't. That is the crux of the discussion you and I have been having. I am not embroiled in a larger one about the DPRK or whatever. Wikipedia sucks as a source and now you know, hopefully that'll keep you from using dogshit source material some other time
The basis for the second article is that there is thousands of Nazis on Wikipedia, seemingly writing barely-challenged lies. The point of the second article is that Wikipedia has a nazi problem, which leads to it having a right-wing bias.
I don't believe it's some sinister plot by Wikipedia, but it is a fact that it is an issue wikipedia has. It is the downside to the "everyone is an editor" format which the site makes use of
The two things just seem to undermine each other, but that aside, I hope the other sources will do, whatever your criteria is for a good source.
You were being critiqued for use of Wikipedia, you defended Wikipedia as being neutral, I pointed out how it wasn't. That is the crux of the discussion you and I have been having. I am not embroiled in a larger one about the DPRK or whatever. Wikipedia sucks as a source and now you know, hopefully that'll keep you from using dogshit source material some other time
You say that like I didn’t use other places as sources as well.