▲ 1073 ▼ They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust. (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by Daft_ish@lemmy.world to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world 330 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is a lot of bias on pages about religion, I find. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) My kind of bias, or the wrong kind? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] yuriy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago This is hilarious, thank you permalink fedilink source parent [–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago* For example there were pages that would state that "Scholars agree that the gospel of ____ was not written by _____ but was written by an anonymous author" when the original sources never discredited the original claim of authorship, but were essentially "I can't be sure who wrote it", never actually saying/discrediting that it wasn't written by said evangelist. I think the anonymous perspective belongs there, but when the original source says "I cannot be sure who wrote it" then that's not saying it wasn't written by them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) My kind of bias, or the wrong kind? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] yuriy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago This is hilarious, thank you permalink fedilink source parent [–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago* For example there were pages that would state that "Scholars agree that the gospel of ____ was not written by _____ but was written by an anonymous author" when the original sources never discredited the original claim of authorship, but were essentially "I can't be sure who wrote it", never actually saying/discrediting that it wasn't written by said evangelist. I think the anonymous perspective belongs there, but when the original source says "I cannot be sure who wrote it" then that's not saying it wasn't written by them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yuriy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago This is hilarious, thank you permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago* For example there were pages that would state that "Scholars agree that the gospel of ____ was not written by _____ but was written by an anonymous author" when the original sources never discredited the original claim of authorship, but were essentially "I can't be sure who wrote it", never actually saying/discrediting that it wasn't written by said evangelist. I think the anonymous perspective belongs there, but when the original source says "I cannot be sure who wrote it" then that's not saying it wasn't written by them. permalink fedilink source parent