There is already the Conservapedia doing the same thing. It allows YouTube and Twitter as sources. I once saw a sentence like “liberals believe _______” and the source was a tweet with like 40 likes.
There is already the Conservapedia doing the same thing. […]
Interestingly, the site is timing out for me right now [1], but I’ve been able to find some interesting archived information: for example, they have a page titled “Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia”[2]. To say the least, I take issue with some of their rationale.
Years ago I saw a page on that site about irrational numbers that was pure comedy. Basically they begrudgingly admit that irrational numbers might actually exist (whatever that means for numbers), but heavily implied that it’s a liberal plot of some kind stemming from moral relativism or whatever. Just insane ramblings.
Again, that’s the point. That’s their angle. Dilute everything so you can’t tell what is factually accurate, and then you have kids reading this dumb shit and assuming it is true.
It’s gotten to the point where now if someone links to YouTube, I’ll think they’re more likely to be wrong than if they just asserted it with no link. Because if it was true, it would probably have a better source.
There is already the Conservapedia doing the same thing. It allows YouTube and Twitter as sources. I once saw a sentence like “liberals believe _______” and the source was a tweet with like 40 likes.
Interestingly, the site is timing out for me right now [1], but I’ve been able to find some interesting archived information: for example, they have a page titled “Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia” [2]. To say the least, I take issue with some of their rationale.
References
Years ago I saw a page on that site about irrational numbers that was pure comedy. Basically they begrudgingly admit that irrational numbers might actually exist (whatever that means for numbers), but heavily implied that it’s a liberal plot of some kind stemming from moral relativism or whatever. Just insane ramblings.
Again, that’s the point. That’s their angle. Dilute everything so you can’t tell what is factually accurate, and then you have kids reading this dumb shit and assuming it is true.
It’s gotten to the point where now if someone links to YouTube, I’ll think they’re more likely to be wrong than if they just asserted it with no link. Because if it was true, it would probably have a better source.