- Joined
- Sep 6, 2024
- Messages
- 2,550
- Points
- 113
Wikipedia is unreliable now? That page is protected by the admins to prevent vandalismOh well, if Wikipedia says so. You got me there. I changed my position. If Wikipedia says it it must be true.
Wikipedia is unreliable now? That page is protected by the admins to prevent vandalismOh well, if Wikipedia says so. You got me there. I changed my position. If Wikipedia says it it must be true.
The fuck does it have to do that it's "protected by the admins"? The whole point is the admins are biased. Otherwise, Wikipedia wouldn't be accused of having any sort of bias to begin with.That page is protected by the admins
Idgaf about that lil nigga
Of course you don't, you just post whatever your 10 second google search gives you to validate your retarded ideas.Idgaf about that lil nigga
What propaganda bitch? I didn't make up any of that. Don't blame me. Ain't "my propaganda". But if it is, then show me stats that say the opposite. You'd think if it's false propaganda they'd be actual reports by honest scientists saying the opposite, but somehow every single report says the same thing. How can that be? Are all scientists racist? There must be some that aren't and tell the truth, so show them to me.
That's why India is such a great developed country, equal or better than most countries made by white people. Oh, wait.
idgaf, my state has 100 percent literacy.Even if it was 10 million, less than 1% of a population with an average IQ of 80 being intellectually gifted doesn't disprove the country's AVERAGE IQ.
The admins are "biased" nowThe fuck does it have to do that it's "protected by the admins"? The whole point is the admins are biased. Otherwise, Wikipedia wouldn't be accused of having any sort of bias to begin with.
Wikipedia is unreliable for anything that isn't factual and indisputable. When there's any component of ideology, why would it be any more objective? Wikipedia is a bunch of random guys who edit articles. If something is not factual, why is some random Wikipedia editor more qualified than I am to state what is correct or not?Wikipedia is unreliable now? That page is protected by the admins to prevent vandalism
>"wikipedia admins and editors are biased"That page is protected by the admins
So what. Oh well, if people can read over there I can't argue with that. I'll clap for you. They can read so they must all be geniuses.idgaf, my state has 100 percent literacy.
I never said they were biased, YOU were the one who said so>"wikipedia admins and editors are biased"
>"but the page is protected by wikipedia admins!"
You're really not making a good case for your country's intelligence buddy boyo
![]()
Read the Wikipedia article on Donald Trump and then tell me Wikipedia is impartial. If you read Trump's article and then Hitler's, you'll realize Hitler's article uses more neutral and unbiased language than Trump's. And that's just an example.The admins are "biased" nowdoing WAY too much on an incel forum
Focus on looksmaxxing lil nigs
Once again, that page is protectedWikipedia is a bunch of random guys who edit articles.
I had 100% literacy at 6 years old, what's your point? Congratulations, people in your specific province achieved the bare minimum.idgaf, my state has 100 percent literacy.
Well, but they are. Wikipedia categorizes any transgender woman as a woman too. Is that not biased?I never said they were biased, YOU were the one who said so
Protected by a bunch of guys who write articles. Again, who tf you think are the Wikipedia admins? You think they're some extraterrestrial master race? They're a bunch of guys who write articles lol. What are their qualifications to write articles?Once again, that page is protected
And you responded in a frame that I had just disproven.I never said they were biased, YOU were the one who said so
They literally link evidence to their claims JFLProtected by a bunch of guys who write articles. Again, who tf you think are the Wikipedia admins? You think they're some extraterrestrial master race? They're a bunch of guys who write articles lol. What are their qualifications to write articles?
Idgaf about that niggaAnd you responded in a frame that I had just disproven.
Yeah so did I, but that's pseudoscience to you. Any can link evidence to their claims. But no, their sources are all correct and indisputable as the Bible. Mine are misinformation. Again, what qualifies them to write categorical articles more than I or anybody else?They literally link evidence to their claims JFL
Tell me you have a low IQ without telling me you have a low IQ.You know it's bad when all you cope about is your "IQ"
Hope y'all get a reality check soon (if y'all haven't already)