61–70 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the same question. Seems like the perpetrator (her daughter?) was released from prison yesterday: https://www.google.com/search?q=Dee+Dee+Blanchard&sca_esv=59...
I'm surprised none of you have heard of the story. It was subject to a pretty interesting dramatisation only a year or two ago. She may have killed her mother but doing so was not too far from self defense in my mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do it. I don't know how to explain why but these pages sometimes contain more information than people think. Like the critics, key-people, government involvement, controversies, etc. And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct.
> And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct. Excuse me, what? Wikipedia is great. But assuming it's neutral and factually correct is delusional. Like with every single organization made up of human beings, power dynamics and censorship are part of Wikipedia. It's still the less bad one, but no one should trust it that blindly.
Why is "Skathi (moon)" 12-th most popular in 2022?
https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/167xb3t/does_any...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do it. I don't know how to explain why but these pages sometimes contain more information than people think. Like the critics, key-people, government involvement, controversies, etc. And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct.
> And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct. Relatively compared to other sources, sure, but not absolutely. Wikipedia supereditors have their own biases that are obvious when reading articles on topics one has expert knowledge on.
Of course, you should never blindly trust any source, but in spite of the simple fact that every author has their own "biases", Wikipedia's general level of trustworthiness exceeds that of most other internet resources by far.
Purely speculation on my part, but I have seen more internet presence of Indian public after Reliance Jio.
That and affordable or cheap even Android phones being easily available.
As there's 1.4 billion of us, it was bound to happen at some point, but I think Reliance Jio's cheap internet and easily available smartphones are the catalyst.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do it. I don't know how to explain why but these pages sometimes contain more information than people think. Like the critics, key-people, government involvement, controversies, etc. And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct.
> And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct. Excuse me, what? Wikipedia is great. But assuming it's neutral and factually correct is delusional. Like with every single organization made up of human beings, power dynamics and censorship are part of Wikipedia. It's still the less bad one, but no one should trust it that blindly.
For different people to get to that feeling means different things. A lot of people place trust in certain figures of authority, in politics or on social media. The reasons for which they do so differ wildly and very often have very little to do with ground truth (although I suspect most people would find that hard to admit).
When somebody says they can trust Wikipedia to be factually correct that mostly is a reflection of choices and what they believe helps them to navigate the world, in a way that is manageable and reasonable to them. Given that time is always a constraint to a varying degree, I think you could do a lot worse if being less wrong is your goal.
Are people really reading Youtube, pornhub, facebook, Instagram pages this frequently or are these misclicks from search result page?
Also, not for these specifically, but if someone tells me about a website I haven't heard of, and not sure if safe / SFW etc I'll usually checkout it's Wikipedia page first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do it. I don't know how to explain why but these pages sometimes contain more information than people think. Like the critics, key-people, government involvement, controversies, etc. And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct.
> And the best part is that I can trust this information to be neutral and factually correct. Excuse me, what? Wikipedia is great. But assuming it's neutral and factually correct is delusional. Like with every single organization made up of human beings, power dynamics and censorship are part of Wikipedia. It's still the less bad one, but no one should trust it that blindly.
The inevitable occasional mistake does not bring it down to the level of arbitrary internet resources.
The reason of so many entries being made up of "Indian interests", is because the cheap internet provided by Reliance Jio. Purely speculation on my part, but I have seen more internet presence of Indian public after Reliance Jio. That and affordable or cheap even Android phones being easily available. As there's 1.4 billion of us, it was bound to happen at some point, but I think Reliance Jio's cheap internet and eas…