Replies

You can tell the neo-klowns that Wikipedia is a hot politicized mess all day long, and they'll still claim that the "data" on Wikipedia is ALL GOOD - as long as it agrees with their blinkered world view.

I’ll wake The Bro up tomorrow with Von der Leyen’s numbers of 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers dead from a year ago. Let’s see how he twists that one :P

kiryandil: "You can tell the neo-klowns that Wikipedia is a hot politicized mess all day long, and they'll still claim that the "data" on Wikipedia is ALL GOOD - as long as it agrees with their blinkered world view."

Look, I know you guys have no interest in facts or reasons, for you it's all just 100% propaganda -- one side's lies versus the other side's lies and truth has nothing to do with it.

For you guys it's all just a matter of finding the most effective lies to mock the other sides' lies with and it doesn't matter if an occasional fact gets thrown in, what matters is only the effectiveness of your insults and slanders.

But if on some rare occasion, you should ever wonder about what is factual or not, then regarding Wikipedia, it's this: Wikipedia presents the best data that's known as "common knowledge" available.
Where there are legitimate disputes, it presents both sides in neutral tones.

Does that mean that Wikipedia is 100% right 100% of the time?
No, of course not, and there is constant editing going on to correct and improve its content.
However, Wikipedia data should imply the following:

It's based on known sources, not just pulled out of the thin air.
It can be and will be updated when more reliable data becomes available.
The probabilities of the average person finding more reliable data are relatively small.

Nevertheless, I always offer -- if you have better data, then show it to us, let's see what you have and where it comes from.

But of course, that's not what you guys are here for, is it?