it isn't a SOURCE period

some articles are obvious horse shit

It's an aggregator of sources god dammit

it's a reference

ehhh, everything's a source

it just depends on how accurate that source is

hence my point

but a lot of wikipedia is pretty accurate

What if your source got them from someone else yes. That doesn't make him a source, makes him a second source and your primary sources over at

goto the original

a lot of wikipedia is sourced

"I'm a source." -Falco, 2019

However it can be noted

There are apparently false claims about Tim pool in his Wikipedia article

wikipedia is good enoug fro a plebe

not for a jounralist or an author

But when he went to go and get it corrected, Wikipedia said no, because Huffington Post was a better source than the man himself

~NEVER a scientist

So they chose Huffington Post fake article over tim himself saying that it's fake

there IS no 'BETTER SOURCE'

only a 'source tree'

damn i hate that notion

if more than one source, include BOTH

don't choose the best

yes if they are a little controversial in left wing circles. there are some srticles edited by fucking lefties

the Gamergate-based articles mainly

(IE. Zoe Quinn, Anita, etc)

most other articles I've seen are fine

Wow. 300 old

a source tree is invaluable in establishing credibility

the more sources have nuggets incorporated from many perspectives, the stronger the story/report

When 900 old you reach, look as good you will not.

Look at that man

Did you know?

300 man

£old

Are you guys aware of Pamperchu?

o god

Pampering Pikachu?

no