|
|
|
|
|
|
by version_five
1498 days ago
|
|
|
It's pretty clear that the grandparent comment means wikipedia doesn't support diverse views on things. Outside of the hard sciences, and even there with caveats, there are not objective truths, and the point is that wikipedia is not a place where all interpretations get the same consideration. Maybe it would be useless if it did, but it's not bias-free |
|
|
It is? Not any way that I read the grandparent comment. Regardless, I would dispute that, unless you're saying the people with 'diverse views' are somehow prevented from contributing to Wikipedia?[0]
> Outside of the hard sciences, and even there with caveats, there are not objective truths, and the point is that wikipedia is not a place where all interpretations get the same consideration.
I'd also dispute this. There are literally thousands of academic disciplines alone, which are incorporated into Wikipedia[1]. As long as there are citations to credible information sources[2], there's no reason not to consider them as much 'objective truths' as the citation sources themselves are are.
[0] Assuming they have requisite levels of credible evidence to back their contributions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_academic_discipline...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...