>>7597795>Wikipedia literally gets edited by social justice warriors>even 4chan has more credibility than that propagadistic site nowadaysThese two statements only follow if you assess the veracity of information only by the individuals who were responsible for presenting that information in the way you have accessed it, rather than validating the sources of that information and the means by which those various sources argue for the validity of the information.
This process is often relatively boring, undramatic, recursive, and tedious, and that's if the material doesn't require specialized knowledge. But if you really want to get into the inevitable greys of concepts and issues instead of wanting to take sides in bread and circuses, I have yet to find a better alternative.
Let's take my screenshot there, for example. The article cites it from:
>Salman Akhtar (1987). Schizoid Personality Disorder: A Synthesis of Developmental, Dynamic, and Descriptive Features. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 41. pp. 499–518. doi:10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1987.41.4.499. ISBN 9781461627685. PMID 3324773. Archived from the original on 2017-07-31. Retrieved 2017-02-10.So they are are saying this table is based on some journal article that predates your specific boogeyman by at least two decades. Is this claim valid? As bullshit as academia CAN be, a good chunk of articles cited on wikipedia can be accessed for free if you actually care to verify:
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1987.41.4.499Unless you believe this is a fabricated article, they are not only citing it, but they only alter the punctuation of the original table presented. At least for this table, there is no rewording of the text of 1987. If you want to argue the validity of this table, whoever added it onto Wikipedia has no bearing in this case. They just made more people accessible to the information.
If you want non-dissonant, black-and-white takes of the world that present a right and wrong, a website like Wikipedia IS of little regard. That's because they're some of the most obsessive nerds about laying out what editors contribute and what those contributions are based upon for public review, specifically so someone saying
>but X edited Y, and X is inherently devious/untrustworthy/biased/tranny/etc., so Y is no longer validAnd yeah, I do give headspace about wikipedia, because how many of you reading this choose another encyclopedia when you try to ascertain information about topics in general?
And this is the part where anons usually reply with tl;dr or claiming I can't meme. Which is an odd statement considering I'm clearly not trying to meme. You can just not read it or hide the post. 