Robert Mueller passed!!!

I am not using it to argue anything.

You on the other hand are doing so, and called anybody who believed it effectively insane.

Yet you quote the jacked up Twitter account of a supermarket tabloid to justify posting racist and islamophobic rants about the mayor of a city in which you don’t live.

Get real and stick to the topic. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

There’s no X posts being referenced in this thread.

The argument is Wikipedia shouldn’t be seen as the baseline to defend Mueller or anybody due to its obvious slant and bias.

I shared 2 top of mind examples from Wikipedia showing strong far left bias. What have you shared about Wikipedia to prove that is incorrect?

Nothing.

There's no argument. He was a good man that passed. Period. Full stop.

No sane person gives any credit to Wiki. Wiki is a woke, racist piece.

Look at a wiki headlines describing George Floyd vs the Ukrainian lady murdered in North Carolina. Or look at the double standard for black pride, Asian pride, and white pride definitions on Wikipedia. Why are these differences ok with you? Why are people not treated as equals and why do you embrace it as a source of truth?

When you callout out brainwashing your first step should be to look in the mirror and reflect. Originally Posted by Green_Mountain

As I understand it most wikipedia editors are college educated white men and women. That leads to a certain degree of systemic bias. However it doesn’t mean that the information provided is inaccurate.

At least wikipedia holds itself to some standard of objectivity and editorial integrity. Rather than saying that wikipedia is biased why don’t you try and convince us that the information that wikipedia provides and that I posted is incorrect. I suspect that you can’t or don’t want to spend the time trying to refute.

All I can say is that wikipedia at least has a coherent internal editorial structure. Something that youtube, twitter, facebook, and other social media platforms don’t.

That makes it more reliable than most other sources of information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ht_and_control

There's no argument. He was a good man that passed. Period. Full stop. Originally Posted by HDGristle

You’re entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t make it fact or that others may have a different opinion.

Last I checked this was the essence of debate.

There’s no X posts being referenced in this thread.

The argument is Wikipedia shouldn’t be seen as the baseline to defend Mueller or anybody due to its obvious slant and bias.

I shared 2 top of mind examples from Wikipedia showing strong far left bias. What have you shared about Wikipedia to prove that is incorrect?

Nothing. Originally Posted by Green_Mountain

I looked at the examples you provided and I can’t see the bias you’re referring to. Please expound on what you see as biased information and we can discuss further.

It appears to me that you are viewing these wikipedia articles through the lens of your own biased opinions.

Oh I will gladly deep dive into those examples I shared but not in this thread as that would be off topic.

And sincerely, 60 seconds of research will see the inconsistencies and why one demographic of people are not treated as equals. I’ll never understand why some think this is ok.

You are welcome to your opinion but it’s still in horribly bad taste to crow over a man’s death. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

This is only going to make the celebration of a certain other man's death that much bigger and that much sweeter.

Just wait til you see the party the world has planned.

Oh I will gladly deep dive into those examples I shared but not in this thread as that would be off topic.

And sincerely, 60 seconds of research will see the inconsistencies and why one demographic of people are not treated as equals. I’ll never understand why some think this is ok. Originally Posted by Green_Mountain

Anyone can create/edit a Wikipedia page; that's what wikie are all about. Note the plethora of citations provided and notes when"citation needed."


Do you have alternative, credible examples of Mueller's work? I accept that he acted fairly.

Anyone can create/edit a Wikipedia page; that's what wikie are all about. Note the plethora of citations provided and notes when"citation needed."


Do you have alternative, credible examples of Mueller's work? I accept that he acted fairly. Originally Posted by saustin

conservative uses wiki------ bad worthless

texas liberal uses wiki....... silence
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=3086541&page=5 post 62 fyi

classic..............

Anyone can create/edit a Wikipedia page; that's what wikie are all about. Note the plethora of citations provided and notes when"citation needed."


Do you have alternative, credible examples of Mueller's work? I accept that he acted fairly. Originally Posted by saustin

Not sure if you’ve noticed but I’ve not shared any opinion about Mueller.

But I have repeatedly shared that Wiki is a far left site, provided examples proving my point, and that Wiki should not be used as the foundation for any debate due to its bias.

Its been noticed, as you keep trying to drag things off topic and rile up an argument over things that don't matter

Not sure if you’ve noticed but I’ve not shared any opinion about Mueller.

But I have repeatedly shared that Wiki is a far left site, provided examples proving my point, and that Wiki should not be used as the foundation for any debate due to its bias. Originally Posted by Green_Mountain

Actually you haven’t provided any examples of said bias. You will need to provide evidence of said bias. Or at least a further explanation of why you think that.

Wikipedia has millions of articles on a quite large number of subjects. Saying that a few are biased, even proving a few are biased doesn’t make the entire organization and its content unworthy of being used.

If you don’t like the references that are being used to make an argument then you will have to argue the evidence presented not the source of the material unless it’s relevant.

Apparently, facts and objective reality are "far left", too.

Actually you haven’t provided any examples of said bias. You will need to provide evidence of said bias. Or at least a further explanation of why you think that.

Wikipedia has millions of articles on a quite large number of subjects. Saying that a few are biased, even proving a few are biased doesn’t make the entire organization and its content unworthy of being used.

If you don’t like the references that are being used to make an argument then you will have to argue the evidence presented not the source of the material unless it’s relevant. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Post #96.

If you want to start a new thread about deep diving into Wiki’s far left bias I’m in. I’ve given you two examples.

Follow the bread crumbs.

Its been noticed, as you keep trying to drag things off topic and rile up an argument over things that don't matter Originally Posted by HDGristle

Unless u have elevated to mod, this post is off topic

I have an idea, let's get eye,jazzy, hd together and call them the mod squad. Lol