Jump to content
Real McCoy

Don't fall for this trap that Wikipedia has for you

Recommended Posts

The past few days if I browse Wiki this big banner comes on obstructing what you were looking for. It asks you for money. Don't fall for it. Wikipedia is another tool by the elite. They have their funding from them. Now they want to make extra money by asking you claiming their net neutrality is at threat. Net neutrality was never there to begin with. 

They used to have visitors type in the info on their pages and after that, they had mods who screened content to put offensive content off. Its like united nations asking you to spend a dollar a day to help the poor people in africa by showing some poor people in africa. its just the begging mafia. these people have enough money to spend but they still want ours. and the money some useless fool gives them doesn't go to the poor. its all a scam. websites or people asking you money on youtube via patreon or paypal is an instant putoff for me. I usually don't visit their sites anymore. I have to look for an alternative to wiki.

Untitled2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since its inception, it was pushed on to us as an easy resource of info on the internet. Any google search will have wiki on the side. btw most of the articles are agenda driven. Why are they asking us to pay for their sh1tty info. We are much better looking at other sites. Also google is in league with wiki. better use lesser known search engines. I use duckgo but I don't know how long they will be able to keep up. If anyone asks for money, their info is pretty much useless. you shouldn't pay money to hear whats going on or casual browsing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

Earlier it used to be brittanica but its also biased as its UK based but atleast they dont ask you for money.....for now

Also it’s a desi way of thinking, why to pay for something when it’s free.

 

I don’t see harm in making a contribution to something you use everyday.

 

For example, few years back I made a small contribution, very minute one of $20 to NPR because I would listen to it everyday on my way to work. I did that for almost a year. They produce quality content and I thought it was a fair contribution.

 

Similarly I took a YouTube class on a particular subject before an interview. I thought the instructor did a great job in explaining complex concepts and it helped me pass the interview and I donated some money for his service. Way less than what it would have been if I had taken the course from one of these educational websites.

 

When I told some of my Desi friends they judged me like I was like that rapper who makes his first million but ends up buying luxury cars and multiple houses and multiple staff and then declares bankruptcy.

Edited by maniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, maniac said:

Also it’s a desi way of thinking, why to pay for something when it’s free.

 

I don’t see harm in making a contribution to something you use everyday.

 

For example, few years back I made a small contribution, very minute one of $20 to NPR because I would listen to it everyday on my way to work. I did that for almost a year. They produce quality content and I thought it was a fair contribution.

 

Similarly I took a YouTube class on a particular subject before an interview. I thought the instructor did a great job in explaining complex concepts and it helped me pass the interview and I donated some money for his service. Way less than what it would have been if I had taken the course from one of these educational websites.

 

When I told some of my Desi friends they judged me like I was like that rapper who makes his first million but ends up buying luxury cars and multiple houses and multiple staff and then declares bankruptcy.

I used to be like you. Paying for a class on interviews is a different thing. He is doing you a favor and you're returning it back by paying him. NPR is not as great as it seems. Sure they seem very professional but they have their own bias. Infact that bias is more deadly than watching bbc which is well known for their bias. Desis get a bad rep as cheapos but it is based on avoiding scams which is very common in India. Most americans are naive to trust in their own news agencies and end up paying for it and buying every news that they sell. As India improves, it is also under great threat of these scams. As others have mentioned, delhi riots and jai shree ram slogan gets misrepresented in wiki. paying them is only hurting us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

For last 5 years, every two months I donate 20$ to Wiki  The amount of knowledge I acquired of wiki, 100$/year is nothing. It is my favorite site on the internet.
 

Love reading indian medieval history on wiki. 

I would go to original sources and read. A lot of times they misrepresent dharmik POV and give a left historian interpretation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

I would go to original sources and read. A lot of times they misrepresent dharmik POV and give a left historian interpretation. 

For sure, we need to go to original sources and get the more detailed and accurate facts, but wikipedia is definitely a good initial pointer of information, especially if we are talking about medieval/ancient history of India and world. I think @rahulrulezz is talking about the same. 

Regarding POV of dharmic or left historian or some other POV., history should be studied and understood independent of (i.e. without the bias) of any of these PoVs. History is simply a true story of the human past. Since we cannot be sure of many things that already happened, we try to deduce the past from what we can find today from various studies such as archeology/linguistics etc. Here, one should let one's religious beliefs or one's political affiliation  to misinterpret/misrepresent true facts.

It may be painful for us to accept some potential facts as facts given our beliefs but then we cannot claim the facts are wrong and say that they are from some other POV. We need to get over that pain and uneasiness and let facts stay as facts. So, if we have proper historical research to claim some other facts, then they can be placed in Wikipedia with appropriate sources. So, the problem of PoV history does not really exist in a common site such as Wikipedia which we all can edit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...