Wikipedia is like Soylent Green … it’s people. Essentially crowd sourced. So bad actors can plant bad stuff, but often somebody else corrects it within minutes. So I’m not sure what it means to say Wikipedia isn’t neutral. I guess the other thing is Wikipedia authors and editors are encouraged to cite sources. For example, in this case the 100.000 number has a footnote to this:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html Which actually says “about 100,000”. If that’s the authoritative source, then both claims of more than and less than 100,000 are misleading. If someone is confident that the Wikipedia article should say “about 100,000”, you could go edit it. That’s the point of crowdsourcing. I’d check the history first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong_flu <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong_flu&action=history> &action=history From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Carl Peterson Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 1:35 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Is this good? I am always amazed at how disconnected the far right can be from what I think is reality. Snopes is fact based and Wikipedia as a whole is pretty darn unbiased. Just because you don't like facts doesn't make them biased. On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:00 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: I cant help but laugh when wikipedia is used to decipher neutrality. sadly, its one step above snopes anymore.
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
