People like @Sophie are smart enough to know that Wikipedia is controlled information, therefore her purpose is to deceive

Lol Wikipedia rates higher on accuracy (not to mention scope) than any other encyclopedia

And of course, you can cross-reference the sources yourself.

These folks will drop their pants around their ankles and trust whatever squirts out of Trump's hole, but treat Wikipedia as some sort of left-wing propaganda tool

eh its an open source. best to treat it like the media. read, interpret, choose whether to take its word or cross-reference and get some other proof as well

(ofc should do the latter of the last two options)

Well, it's good to be skeptical of everything. Textbooks are FULL of inaccuracies, mistakes, and revisions.

Too bad there's no way for someone to edit them on the fly, eh?

That would be handy

;)

In any case, I agree that it shouldn't be taken as gospel

That said, when people reject Wikipedia as a source, 99.9% of the time they're Trumpsters and the like being weasley and dishonest.

There are things you can trust Wikipedia on and things you can’t. An article about a popular political figure? Someone might have altered that for their own ends

An article about the derivation of the feudal title “duke”? That’s probably fine

Especially since it matched what I already know to be true from other sources

You can’t trust it when it comes to dates

Anyone interested in the fall of the western empire and the rise of feudalism, Mike Duncan gets into it somewhat in the last episode of history of Rome: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6LHLVXMRj4zOfJd6bHUVmi?

Super fascinating stuff

daily reminder that im cute and ur cute too

xoxo

except jesushand

he's ugly

What about me

ya ur cute

Lmao u don't even know what i look like

ya i do

Ok tell me

ugly

Like a bitch

ha ha ha

I bet your ugly too

nope

im pretty

PROVE IT

nope

🦧

No proof or It ain't real

SHE ISN'T REAL

I’m a helicopter

Same ugh we're twinning

<:honk:583238347124637707>