• Cruxifux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.

      Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.

        Listen man, even in the very good college that I went to, everyone starts at Wikipedia and then uses it’s sources since if they’re good sources then they’ll be a helpful jumping off point.

        Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.

        Peer reviewed journal articles are not the lowest effort citation that the CIA could manipulate. Again, the wiki article has numerous sources (which I’ve read through), do you have any sources to contradict the information that they contain?

        • intelshill@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          You do realize that… The peer review process is not, inherently, robust, right?

          There’s a reason different publication venues have different levels of prestige. Nature and Science? Very prestigious. The Lancet? Very prestigious. NeurIPS? Very prestigious. The Journal of Genocide Research? Not so prestigious.

    • nekandro@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Imagine citing Wikipedia lmao

      You’d get laughed out of any academic context in a heartbeat

    • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      You realise that Wikipedia is not one iota more credible than a lemmy comment right? You won’t believe people here, but funnyguy1234 (actual name of one that articles writers) is a font of academic rigor? Also lol at well sourced - you never bothered to check them, if you did you wouldn’t say that. Here’s a challenge; what were the pieces of primary evidence that convinced you?

      • mellowheat@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Is there any reason to think “prolewiki” is more reliable than wikipedia?

        ProleWiki is a collaborative Marxist-Leninist project aiming to build an anti-imperialist communist encyclopedia with information on current events, communist parties worldwide, countries, as well as hosting a library of texts important to the international communist movement.

        Seems like it’s openly biased. And while I can appreciate the honesty, I’m not sure how it can be viewed as reliable.

        • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Wikipedia is extremely unreliable and biased, and not even on political topics, even linguistical and scientific articles are prone to huge issues. (see: Scottish Gaelic) If you wish to call prolewiki as biased, I must tell you that wikipedia is even worse, it just has a more liberal bias. Follow their sources and you will see. ProleWiki discloses the bias up front, and has an squad of source patrollers who make sure when a claim is made, it is grounded in reality that can be sourced. Sure, there aren’t that many articles on it yet, but we strive to set a high standard because the slightest weak link in the project will be used by people like yourself to discredit us.

          Disclaimer: I am a ProleWiki contributor.

          • mellowheat@suppo.fi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            So you’re aiming at truth, not communistic propaganda? I’m wondering why you/they choose to call it ProleWiki.

            Was what I quoted up there a weak link? It’s on the footer of every page.

            • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              why you choose to call it ProleWiki.

              Because it’s the wiki of the people instead of the wiki of bourgeoisie interests, why the fuck else

              Communistic propaganda

              lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased? We do analyze matters though the lens of marxism-lenninism, we make sure our sources and research is decent, and if that’s “communist propaganda” to you well, your loss lmao. But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything

              • mellowheat@suppo.fi
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything

                That wasn’t me though, I just barged into this conversation to talk about our perceptions and definitions of truth in these online encyclopedias more so than about Uyghurs.

                Personally, I’m not quite sold on the Uyghur narrative on either side but I also haven’t looked into it a lot.

                lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased?

                Yeah, nothing is (which includes Marxist-Leninism), but I unfortunately don’t have the time and resources to not trust something.

                • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  not trust something.

                  Well, You absolutely can, since it actually saves you time. Otherwise you’d go and listen to Fox News slop as well

                  Uyghur narrative

                  There really isn’t much information even provided by the proponents of the genocide theory, for example their supposed police database leak that was going to be irrefutable evidence… it was fake. It had AI pictures and pictures of public figures. They did some political circus for a while, and then it just kind of died down, we don’t even have much to debunk because their claims were political circus aimed at the western people. If they can provide proper evidence, then I’ll take time to investigate properly.

                  Meanwhile there is an actual genocide of Muslims currently underway and so far so good western media seems to be on-board, so I have a hard time to believe them

                  Note, I am actually Iranian myself. If there is a Muslim genocide underway I’m inclined to go figure it out

                  • mellowheat@suppo.fi
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    Well, You absolutely can, since it actually saves you time. Otherwise you’d go and listen to Fox News slop as well

                    Not trusting Fox News is pretty fucking easy tbh :) Wikipedia is not quite as trivial, I feel.