Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦
But anyone who isn’t a moron knows that MBFC is an incredibly biased source… Right?
Literally they make it so obvious
It’s my one grouse with the Tesseract ui, that they grab MBFC ratings for every post linking an external site and highlight it. It’s not the awesome feature you seem to think it is, Patrick
They think that because it claims to be accurate, therefore it is. No fact checking of themselves, no matter how it is completely wrong and treats liberal media as far left, and fox news are center right, it’s the godsend for the mods to remove anything they dislike.
It’s in the Wikipedia sourcing guidelines: Absolutely under no circumstances should you reference Wikipedia as a reliable source, it needs to be something external, ideally something with some expertise, because if you never check yourself from outside, you can believe literally anything because you believe it just because at some point it made its way into your little collection, and self-referential loops are bad.
Meanwhile MBFC’s rating for MBFC: 10/10 bro
Wikipedia is a god send for how communal fact reporting. I love how they list accepted sources, sources considered fine in some instances, and out right refuse to have some ever listed, except for documentation of themselves as a reference, some don’t even get that treatment, just forever barred.
I do love going to the wikipedia pages about times wikipedia has caught itself in a cycle of where:
Someone edited Wikipedia without a citation -> A place used this as a citation of sorts -> the place is now cited on wikipedia, as a source of why its trueLike fun fact, the name of the Pringles mascot was invented by an editor of wikipedia as a joke before wikipedia caught it. Julius Pringle was the name of the dude according to a college student who added it as a prank back in the day, and randomly Pringles said that was his name saying that’s what it must have been according to their own research. That random edit made a national food company effectually retcon themselves.
Wikipedia is in general, pretty good for what it is. Not perfect, but overall accurate.
Well there’s a lot of morons on Lemmy.
Yes, but I forgive all of you for disagreeing with me sometimes. I can’t expect perfection.
Just obedience when the revolution kicks off.