Wikipedia certainly doesn’t need AI to fuck up their articles.
Plenty of biased, incorrect stuff done by themselves.Link the incorrect stuff
Wikipedia has a giant article regurgitating the false claims from the extremist Falun Gong cult that China is stealing their organs.
Link or gtfo, let people check the sources themselves
Here you go, Would you like me to cut your food for you too?
“Here’s a thing I believe in”
“I would like proof it is a thing”
“What are you, stupid? Don’t ask me for proof.”
I read most this article and don’t see how any of it is false or misinformation. Literally the first word in the page is “alleged”, and it’s full of arguments with linked citations from both sides
Clearly we’re the sheeple for accepting sources and citations and they’re the only one who can see the truth between the lines of how his favorite nation is actually misunderstood.
80% of political stuff or with political importance.
I clicked all the words in your comment but none of them opened a browser window
not interested in doing work for others.
There have been plenty instances of manipulation over the years and shady practices in the organisation itself.
Unbelievable there are still so many gullible people still thinking it’s a reputable source.
if you love it so much for some reason then keep using it.
garbage in, garbage outWhen you make claims, you give proof. That’s how things work in reality.
I downloaded the entirety of wikipedia as of 2024 to use as a reference for “truth” in the post-slop world. Maybe I should grab the 2022 version as well just in case…
Why would wikipedia of all things be your go to for that?
NATOpedia is a great resource if you go in with an assumption of a pro-western bias, but a source of truth lmao.
Someone is mad their sources got removed for not being credible.
What a shock that someone who pretends to be an anarchist would go to bat to defend the reliablity of far right western propaganda outlets like Radio Free Asia, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Remember, if it doesn’t’ have the Western Neo-liberal seal of approval, it’s not credible and should be removed, that’s the anarchist way!
What in the fuck are you talking about
A lot of western liberals really do treat it like the Holy Scripture. Any intelligence agencies would just have to pay a few admins and higher some people to sculpt the list of “reliable sources” that Wikipedia uses and they can basically fully control what hundreds of millions of neoliberals believe.
And they have.
Well you’re free to submit sources that are credible and challenge that old ones aren’t.
