Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wikipedia is untrustworthy as a source. It's primary benefactor is George Soros. Do you really think you're getting unbiased articles? If you think so, take a look at what they write about certain conservatives, which they call "conspiracy theorists," "homophobes," "Islamophobes," etc. Does that sound unbiased and is using such terms professional for something that likes to think of itself as an online encyclopedia? And what is their source for these articles? None other than the Southern Poverty Law Center, another Soros funded organization! One hand washes the other.
It's as good as it gets.
One imagines that if you read the World Book you would say it was biased because it spoke badly of the Nazis.
Wikipedia is not flawless, but there are certainly a LOT of footnotes, links, checking, etc.
It's as good as it gets...in an era of "fake news"...
Wikipedia is untrustworthy as a source. It's primary benefactor is George Soros. Do you really think you're getting unbiased articles? If you think so, take a look at what they write about certain conservatives, which they call "conspiracy theorists," "homophobes," "Islamophobes," etc. Does that sound unbiased and is using such terms professional for something that likes to think of itself as an online encyclopedia? And what is their source for these articles? None other than the Southern Poverty Law Center, another Soros funded organization! One hand washes the other.
Wikipedia was not his only source go back and take another look at the article,
And I know this is probably a big shock to you but anyone can edit a wikipedia article; you, me George Soros even Donald Trump so this nonsense about a wikipedia bias against conservatives is just horse poop. If you don't like what someone said about one your conservative heroes, then go edit the article, it's really that simple.
And I know this is probably a big shock to you but anyone can edit a wikipedia article; you, me George Soros even Donald Trump so this nonsense about a wikipedia bias against conservatives is just horse poop. If you don't like what someone said about one your conservative heroes, then go edit the article, it's really that simple.
Well, there are standards for contributions that are enforced, like supplying credible references.
It's always amusing to hear people trivially discard Wikipedia articles, ignoring the long list of references at the end. It's like, "which one of those 50 references did you disagree with?"
Well, there are standards for contributions that are enforced, like supplying credible references.
It's always amusing to hear people trivially discard Wikipedia articles, ignoring the long list of references at the end. It's like, "which one of those 50 references did you disagree with?"
Exactly, I think I have the list mostly memorized since I see it so much.
Wikipedia is untrustworthy as a source. It's primary benefactor is George Soros. Do you really think you're getting unbiased articles? If you think so, take a look at what they write about certain conservatives, which they call "conspiracy theorists," "homophobes," "Islamophobes," etc. Does that sound unbiased and is using such terms professional for something that likes to think of itself as an online encyclopedia? And what is their source for these articles? None other than the Southern Poverty Law Center, another Soros funded organization! One hand washes the other.
Fair enough about Wikipedia. I myself always try to use Wikileaks as a starting point, and thenconfirm what I read on Wikipedia with other sources.
For instance, the information about Lukoil working with Cambridge Analytica comes from two employees of Cambridge Analytica. The information about the executives of Lukoil can be easily confirmed on the company's website (and sites such as Bloomberg). And, the information about the two Lukoil executives being placed on the U.S. Department of Treasury's list of Russia oligarchs under consideration for sanctions related to the 2016 elections comes from the U.S. Department of Treasury (which by the way, is run by Wilbur Ross, who is hardly a progressive himself).
So, if you want to question the information in the Wikipedia link I or any one else provided, perhaps one approach might be to actually provide additional factual sources of information from unbiased sources yourself that show why it isn't true. That would be much productive to the conversation than just dismissing everything as coming from George Soros, don't you think?
''It is impossible to divide the interest of a country and a company that works on its soil,'' he said. ''Our interests are the same. What's good for Russia is good for the company.''
''Politics are close to me, but there are different ways of participating in politics,'' Alekperov told me during a talk in his office on a recent Saturday morning. ''I can't afford to be indifferent to politics, but I don't have personal ambitions. I have only one task connected with politics, to help the country and the company. "
Yet the raid upon CA offices to examine if they were improperly using FB data finally took place yesterday after CA had two years to erase their tracks.
It of course took television to break the story into a format that the average person can become outraged about.
I guess the saying that if the crime doesn't happen on video it isn't true applies.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,798,262 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosieSD
Fair enough about Wikipedia. I myself always try to use Wikileaks as a starting point, and thenconfirm what I read on Wikipedia with other sources.
For instance, the information about Lukoil working with Cambridge Analytica comes from two employees of Cambridge Analytica. The information about the executives of Lukoil can be easily confirmed on the company's website (and sites such as Bloomberg). And, the information about the two Lukoil executives being placed on the U.S. Department of Treasury's list of Russia oligarchs under consideration for sanctions related to the 2016 elections comes from the U.S. Department of Treasury (which by the way, is run by Wilbur Ross, who is hardly a progressive himself).
So, if you want to question the information in the Wikipedia link I or any one else provided, perhaps one approach might be to actually provide additional factual sources of information from unbiased sources yourself that show why it isn't true. That would be much productive to the conversation than just dismissing everything as coming from George Soros, don't you think?
Yeah what she says!
It is amazing Conservatives blame everything on the one big liberal donor. They want us to ignore all the billionaires who are actively pushing their agenda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now for some humor--
