No. Fuck you Snopes. Your site is continually full of bullshit. Anyone who donates to either Snopes or Wikipedia is a god damn fool. The Internet would evolve better tools if both of these pieces of shit went away.
🇳🇱
@djsumdog Wikipedia has high quality good content and is relatively not biased (it is sometimes bias).
Snopes on the other hand is a bias piece of shit.
They do have a perspective. But is a democratic system so their perspective is little more than the perspective of experts on any one subject. There is a lean, as I said, but that lean is towards those facts which are accepted by the expert community on a subject. That said it is only their language that leans towards accepted consensus, they still include contrary opinions no matter how absurd.
@freemo @djsumdog Not to be contrarian, but Wikipedia is comprised of citations, and the strength demanded of those citations is entirely up to the personal perspective of Wikipedia's admins.
That is how insane and poorly-cited narratives remain stated as fact on Wikipedia's article about the Tulsa Negro Uprising.
That is how insane and poorly-cited narratives remain stated as fact on Wikipedia's article about the Tulsa Negro Uprising.
