[PJ-Comix]

Wikipedia is NOTORIOUS for smearing anybody who questions the liberal narrative and this is what Soave considers as an authoritative source. He barely even knew of Dr. Peter McCullough yet concluded he was saying things that weren't true because he quickly consulted Wikipedia. What a joke!

[PJ-Comix]

PING!

[Mean Daddy]

Wikipedia is so well sourced and fact checked that serious college professors will NOT allow you to source to it in research papers.

[Pollard]

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Main_Page

[rlmorel]

Now, that did make me laugh aloud! The equivalent of:

Stalin: The Soviet Union is generally pretty Democratic!

[bravo whiskey]

I think it is a good start source for history before 2000 and obscure topics like the Polish zUkranian War of 1919. I think that tends to be apolitical. Current stuff, especially political, probably not so much.

[SkyDancer]

Well it must be true since it’s posted on the internet.

[virgil]

Wikipedia isn’t bad unless something becomes political. When something gets political, the article gets loaded up with bs.

[proxy_user]

I read the article on the making of David Bowie’s 1976 album album Low yesterday. I’ve got to admit, it was amazingly detailed and well-researched.

If that doesn’t convince you, check out the article on the history of the Cornish language!

[Liaison]

Wikipedia is mostly accurate. Where it fails to be is on hot political issue, topical social issues with differing opinions, and the smearing of public figures especially if the wiki moderators don’t like you.
One the worst one for me is the climate change page. The overlords and toadies of climate propaganda do not allow any science debate on the page and if the “prevailing views” are challenged, the sycophants immediately erase any dissent.

[Liaison]

Wikipedia is mostly accurate. Where it fails to be is on hot political issue, topical social issues with differing opinions, and the smearing of public figures especially if the wiki moderators don’t like you.
One the worst one for me is the climate change page. The overlords and toadies of climate propaganda do not allow any science debate on the page and if the “prevailing views” are challenged, the sycophants immediately erase any dissent.

[AndyTheBear]

For non controversial generic information, for example what tv shows a famous actor appeared in or the syntax of specifying a crime job on a Linux computer it actually is mostly accurate. Its just that on any controversial issue that goes out the window.

[zeugma]

Depends upon what you’re looking for. If you’d like to know something like the hardness of a particular mineral, yeah, it’s pretty accurate.

If the topic you are looking at has ANY political implications at all, not so much.

[daniel1212]

Accurate: fine, as regards most information on places and events that do not involve political moral ideology, but issues like Bible teaching, evolution, presidencies (try to find much of anything negative about LBJ there), historical causes and opinions,antifa, BLM, etc. and you can see the slant, at the least. And there is a difference btwn accuracy and honesty. Efforts to at least provide balance can be thwarted by controlling liberals editor who force it to die the death of a thousand interpretations of policy, even of POV itself.

[allblues]

Soave is allegedly a libertarian and writes frequently for Reason, an allegedly libertarian magazine. It is funded at least in part by Charles Koch and most of the writers, especially Jacob Sullum, have terminal cases of TDS.

This particular segment if Rising was one of the worst I’ve seen and was nearly universally panned by commenters on YouTube. Unfortunately Kim Iverson was not on that segment to inject a bit of common sense into Soave and Grim.

[x]

Soave's smarminess

Doesn't "soave" mean "smarmy" in some language or other. Rico Suave.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It is pretty accurate so long as the subject is far away from politics.