Because I've tried lmao

And yes well again

This isnt the early 2000s

Yes this is the current year.

@Comrade Skeltal And knowing you, you probably made it extremely obvious in the process.

Well you dont know me,

Are talking out of your ass,

And therefore should hush

But again Mr. E, it isnt the early 2000s, If you take issue with Wiki, read the sources it cites

You can obviously see nobody has edit the page to say anything weird

@Deleted User I agree with that, I recall distinctly that a lot use articles that no longer exist, are from fucking anarchist sites, or extremely untrustworthy news outlets.

Or you know, aren't, and you're entirely anecdotal

But you know, he's free to believe what he wants

It's the internet afterall

Doesn't need to be the 2000s to know that wiki pages can be false.

If you're quick enough, you can try and edit the wiki he views to say this is sourced by anarchists

@Comrade Skeltal It isn't 2000, but that dosen't mean that wikipedia isn't free from biased editting.

Agreed.

Its free from people wily nilly editing it in a biased manner Yes it is.

There are people who's job it is to keep these pages updated

And accurate

People who do literally nothing else

Every single page?

Yes, every single page with information to be had

Ah ok.

If there isnt info public

Obviously they can't update it further

@Comrade Skeltal And please, do not use the fallacy of "COME ON PEOPLE, IT IS 2018!", that shit holds no substance at all, and is just meant to get the attention of dummies.

But notice how they dont go in and write about bullshit?

And you know that how?

It has all the substance

Bevause I'm not a dunce E, go ahead and try to edit

And then record how long it takes

Cant be assed tbh

That's what I thought.

So you asked for sources, there you are.

Take them for what they are, or don't

We still havent factored in preventable disease and hunger

Hunger will always exist.

@Comrade Skeltal So just a bunch of mods who have to moderate millions of pages? Jesus, it is no wonder why wikipedia has a reputation for being untrustworthym

"It has substance" Is not an argument, it is a statement, at least try.

"A bunch: entirely subjective value placed on their strength of personnel