/lit/ - Literature

>>20264947
You really shouldn't. They're run by commies and all political and history articles lean that way.

>>20264947
I trust Indologists more than me mum

>>20264955
your medications

For anything other than the formal and hard sciences like mathematics and physics, you really shouldn't--or at least, you should hesitate--and even for those their are better sources. It is usually pretty decent for anything not overtly contentious politically though.

>>20264947
i edit wikipedia articles so i can reference them and win an argument
i most recently did it with the engine specifications of a car

>>20264955
dubs of truth

>>20264989
>if it doesnt align with my biases therefore bad
>>20265015
link it

>>20264947
The CIA run a tight ship there
Does MI6 do the same for EB?

>>20265019

>>20265022

>>20265024
This.

>>20265028
>Mention the out in the open conspiracy to control the national narrative
>get called crazy by a frog posting nobody
Suite yourself, kid. But this is actual “red pill”

>>20265024
Cope tranny

>>20265040
>buzz word
Pavlovian for sure

>>20265037
go back

>>20264955
>>20265022
>>20265037

>>20265071
Did you not know they donate to Wikipedia and control what gets put up?

>>20264973
I can prove it. Look up the Jew that the adl was made to protect.
Wikipedia claims "modern consensus is that he was innocent and that some random nigger was guilty" they provide no source proving that, they don't even link to the niggers page
On said niggers page there is no mention of murder and rape.
They are even consistent in their lies

>>20265204
*They aren't even*

>>20265204
>>20265213

>>20264955
It's always been that way. I was reading my old World Book Encyclopedia from the 90s a few weeks ago and it talks about Communism in glowing terms while half the Capitalism article is dedicated to "Problems with Capitalism". It's that that not that many people noticed at the time because there was no worldwide social media for people to piece things together and see exactly how slanted the narrative was.

>>20265222
Truly amazing that you'd come to board focused on the written word and refuse to communicate with it
Prove me wrong nigger
Post anything that refutes what I said
Take your meds
Dial 8
You will never pass

>>20265204
In all seriousness, how can you think you come off as the rational, no biased party when every other word in your post is "nigger".

Get a grip, take your meds, touch grass, get some pussy, etc

>>20265282
Lmao still not a rebuttal nigger
I gave a specific example
You can call out my use of the word nigger all you want.
Doesn't mean shit if you can't refute my actual points
I can be rational about a topic well also being racist about a different unrelated type of people/topic
This really isn't complicated

>>20265225
seek actual help

>>20265306
Contribute anything of value

>>20265302
You really can't. Your example can be correct, but you cannot be rational if you think that you will convert people in an argument about bias, when you're making your own bias so obvious.
You are stupid. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

>>20265302
>doesnt count
cope

>>20265317
dumbass

>>20265315
My contribution is to ask you to seek help and snap back to reality.

>>20265330
tub o lard lookin ass

>>20265317
What bias am I making obvious. I said the nigger was innocent but Wikipedia said he was guilty?
Is my bias pro black?
Walk me through your rational thought process here.
You're really going to talk about rationality well ignoring my actual point because I said the nigger word.
That doesn't seem very rational to me

>>20265326
Still not a rebuttal

>>20265336
>What bias am I making obvious
>nigger

they don't bait like they used to i tell ya

>>20265334
It seems like you're the only one who's unhinged. You seem unable to cope with differing views than your own. You can't even explain why you disagree with them
Are you okay?

>>20265342
I didn't ask you to speak negro

>>20265342
Yes what bias
Say it
Am I anti black because I said nigger?
Well in the same breath calling out Wikipedias racist attack on an innocent black man?
Again, walk me through your rational thought process.
Don't just read individual words you don't like
I know it's asking alot on the reading board to read my posts but you need to read the whole post to get context.

>>20265341

>>20265352
>dumb opinion
>at least it was a different view
lmfao

>>20265370
See>>20265341

>>20265334
What was said that you take offense at? Surely not the fact that academia is filled with people sympathetic to communism?

>>20265373
see >>20265370

>>20265372
>Still can't explain why he disagrees with an opinion
>It's dumb because...
>IT JUST IS OKAY
Truly shameful

>>20265369
nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

>>20265470
Lmao holy fuck genuinely unhinged
Why do you trannies even come to 4chan if nigger drives you this crazy

wikipedia has bots that automatically revert any obvious edits you make within seconds
with that being said, i once managed to upload a gigantic picture (10,000 x 10,000) of a random celebrity and opening up the page caused your pc to lock up and crash

good times

>>20264947
fucking idiot

>>20264955
> political and history articles
Much like everywhere else the hard sciences can be trusted and the soft ones are just full of ideological idiots lying to each other.

>>20265024
Cool story bro

>>20265470
Based nigger enjoyer

>>20265369
>racism outside of /b/
yup in the cringe list it goes

>>20265369
Didn't read.

>>20265590
>it doesnt align with my political belief which is anything or anybody than me is some [Insert Political Ideology that I disagree]
okay

>>20265379

You sound like a mouthbreathing moron you know that.

>>20265607
>Still not a rebuttal
>>20265610
You mean you can't read

>>20265621
>Still not a rebuttal
>Calling anyone a mouth breather when you lack the ability to express why you don't like something
Do you get from place to place by instinct or do you have a retard wrangler that helps you with the day to day

I post lies on Wikipedia all the time, mostly to counter the Jews who post an equal number of lies.
Wikipedia exists specifically to encourage revisionism, and is structured so a clique of Jews may edit all known knowledge through proxy.

I gave up complaining about their organized revisionism when I learned a literal Jew started the company.
Now I just post antisemetic lies because it's an inherently hostile platform.

A. you've got regional dominance, editors aren't geographically represented.
A Jew can edit the article about your hometown and you can neither identify or stop them doing this, they can re-write your history because they speak your language; you on the other hand can't speak or read Hebrew.
We see this dynamic in academia all the time, where linguistic minorities present their own culture collectively and attack majority language cultures.
B. most of the senior editors are using hundreds of proxies to astroturf articles and game the resolution system.
You simply don't see senior editors contesting content they don't like- they merely run bots to auto-revert the work of new users then employ proxies to contest the articles they don't like.
C. Jews exert external pressure through lawfare, simply giving the website an excuse to delete content.
The most serious issue here is that Jews may cite secondary sources when the primary source is proprietary.
A Jewsih scientist claims to have read a manuscript and publishes a thesis on it, the thesis is a valid source while the manuscript is actively suppressed through copywrite.
You even see the Jews taking pictures of artistic works, then destroying the original work so the only version accessible is their copy- which is somehow copywritable

Fuck jews, fuck wikipedia

>>20264947
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASED

>>20265623
>>20265629
>its not a rebuttal because... because... because i said so

>>20265631
>I post lies on Wikipedia all the time, mostly to counter the Jews who post an equal number of lies.
>Wikipedia exists specifically to encourage revisionism, and is structured so a clique of Jews may edit all known knowledge through proxy.
>
>I gave up complaining about their organized revisionism when I learned a literal Jew started the company.
>Now I just post antisemetic lies because it's an inherently hostile platform.
>
>A. you've got regional dominance, editors aren't geographically represented.
>A Jew can edit the article about your hometown and you can neither identify or stop them doing this, they can re-write your history because they speak your language; you on the other hand can't speak or read Hebrew.
>We see this dynamic in academia all the time, where linguistic minorities present their own culture collectively and attack majority language cultures.
>B. most of the senior editors are using hundreds of proxies to astroturf articles and game the resolution system.
>You simply don't see senior editors contesting content they don't like- they merely run bots to auto-revert the work of new users then employ proxies to contest the articles they don't like.
>C. Jews exert external pressure through lawfare, simply giving the website an excuse to delete content.
>The most serious issue here is that Jews may cite secondary sources when the primary source is proprietary.
>A Jewsih scientist claims to have read a manuscript and publishes a thesis on it, the thesis is a valid source while the manuscript is actively suppressed through copywrite.
>You even see the Jews taking pictures of artistic works, then destroying the original work so the only version accessible is their copy- which is somehow copywritable
>
>Fuck jews, fuck wikipedia

Get a Life

>>20265631
Imagine being this pathetic.

>>20265637
Lmao you haven't refuted anything
Responding isn't a rebuttal
Saying cope isn't a rebuttal
Address anything anyone has said explain why it's wrong
You literally can not do it
Even after I directly called you out for it, you still can't explain yourself
So that's a yes you have a wrangler I assume you're posting here because they're asleep.

>>20265631
>blah blah blah i just hate jews for no particular reason i made it all up wahhhh

>>20265649
I have refuted and answered all of your arguments. If you cannot accept it then it is Not My Problem.

>>20265664
Lmao Where. Show me where.
You haven't responded to
>>20265375
>>20265369
>>20265336
I only posted the last two
Explain what bias I have well both insulting and defending a black person

>>20265685
You are arguing with three people.

>>20265692
>Not one of them has addressed what I've said
Why would that matter. The guy I responded to hasn't addressed anything

>>20265652
>>20265642
>>20265645
The Jew cries in pain as he strikes you.

>>20265700
Tourist refugees deserve the hammer.

>>20265696
So which one of them?

>Wikipedia

>>20265709
>>20265685
Read

>>20265713
>you
yup you are crazy

>>20265700
>Odds of being under age: Highly

>>20265720
>Still not a rebuttal

>>20265730
Yeah I cannot debate with this mentally ill troon.
Good night sirs.

>>20264947

>>20264947
I use wikipedia for STEM articles and Britannica for everything else.

>>20265748
>Left-wing volunteers
>who do whatever the FBI wants of them.
>Democrat
>left
So they donate and hire “volunteers” to control the narrative. I was right.

>>20264955
fpbp. Britannica is more reliable

>>20264955
This.

If you're reading Philosophy, the Stanford and Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy are better and more complete sources.

>>20264955
this

>>20265021
>>if it doesnt align with my biases therefore bad
Yes.

>>20265379
You sound based and you know that. Here's a good meme for your troubles of having to deal with that gaslighting shill

>>20265334
>reality is outdated marxist ideology

Ok.

>>20265645
Nice argument you go there

>>20265748
Remember being blocked from larrys own wikiclone, because i said it was disrespectful to the japs too have 4/5 of the article on japanese culture be about anime.

>da joos because *suckle* *suckle* um... le bad

>>20265024
>t. tranny trying to kill the site's culture

>>20265748
i read wikipedia to know about things that are apolitical

>>20264947

what about 1911 Britannica?

>>20265738
You can't debate period

>>20266596
Yes

>>20264947
trust neither both are full of snakes

>>20265631
I was floored to learn of that jew witch who deletes tons of info about German military personnel of note during WWII because "None of it can be independently verified.", you know, eighty years later, and literally holds the belief, and wikipedia backs her on this, that if any info about them came from German sources, even if it's a dry log of medal recipients, it can be dismissed as nazi propaganda and removed.

>>20264947
I trust Encyclopedia Dramatica more than Wikipedia

>>20264947
Wikipedia is good for one thing and one thing only.

>>20264955
The expert from American has arrived.

>>20265024
Yes