No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
First… are the people bringing this up really into social media? Or conservative, by chance?
There’s three potentially confused things:
Oldschool “Wikipedia isn’t a primary source.” I learned this in middle school. It’s technically true.
There’s slightly newer accusations of a liberal Wikipedia bias. Hence the attempt to create Conservapedia. There’s a tiny nugget of truth, perhaps, but not to the outrageous extent suggested.
THEN there are modern attempts to discredit Wikipedia as a whole. Mind my tinfoil hat, but I’d argue it’s largely algorithmic and Big Tech driven, as it’s a high profile information source they cannot control, a place where things are documented they don’t necessarily want in the limelight.
There’s some overlap too, like Musk’s motivations, rants, and actions falling into category 2 and 3. Or some hijacking of point 1.
One point 1, the academics have gone real quiet about that in the face of the modern information apocalypse. It’s still true, but it’s like complaining about rain while drowning in a tsunami. The pot-stirrers lost point 2.
…And Big Tech is gonna win on point 3.
They control everyone’s information bubble now. They can make people distrust Wikipedia, as you have seen with your own eyes.
Well of course, the wiki that supports free access to information is more often than not contributed by people who support that. But that is a very slight bias, and you're pretty messed in the head if you believe that information should inherently be restricted to a certain group of people.
Reality has a left wing bias.
Unfortunately the biggest part is, there's kind of 2 definitions of bias at this point.
There's the older, what I'd consider should be the truer form where bias is about taking a side or leaning the interpretation of the established facts on things that don't have a 100% perfect consistant answer. IE Sportsball team A is better than sportsball team B, when obviously every part of that equasion is a dynamic, every player has good and bad days. good and bad weather conditions etc... who they've played against and how good they are etc...
Same for political concepts where at the very least it's worth noting there's no agreed upon by all of political science good and bad with regards to ideas etc...
Then you've got the type B bias where... well one side is outright denying the objective facts. Going to the sportsball analogy, that's like one side says "Team A won 900 to 0 against team B", while fans of team B go "look the game's score is right here... team b won 52-20". and they call you bias for trusting the sportsball leagues official scores, and the game that aired on national television, over the word of team A's number one fan.