Update: This turned out to be too strict a constraint. And as much as I would like it to be otherwise, Wikipedia still tends to be more reliable and more up-to-date than the alternatives, at least for less political topics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Carry that weight
On June 11, I posted " The Pot of Yellow Stew, aka Lake of Golden Dreams ," followed the next day by " Cary Yale ." In a...
-
Following up on the idea that the pecked are no longer alone in their bodies , reader Ben Pratt has brought to my attention these remarks by... -
Disclaimer: My terms are borrowed (by way of Terry Boardman and Bruce Charlton) from Rudolf Steiner, but I cannot claim to be using them in ... -
That's Bruce's coinage, from an email, though likely one that's been independently invented by others as well. I thought it was ...
4 comments:
Would you be willing to give a brief explanation for why? Or perhaps link to one?
I've been using Infogalactic for my published links for a while; but - speaking personally - avoiding Evil Institutions altogether, in a world of nothing-but EIs, seems like too much effort and too restricting and not possible.
Unknown, the proximate cause of my decision was the discovery that, above and beyond mere "bias," the website has explicit policies requiring contributors to lie and to suppress relevant information, and that these are even more extreme than those of such outlets as the Washington Post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity
(Yes, I know I just said I wouldn't link to them, but rules are made to be broken.)
Bruce, I agree that avoiding evil institutions entirely is neither possible nor worth attempting. (I am, after all, writing this on a Google-hosted blog.) In this case, though, I think it's both relatively easy to do and worth what marginal effort it requires. Wikipedia is the informational equivalent of fast food, and there's no excuse for consuming it when so many alternatives are so readily available. I will continue to use Wikipedia to find the correct Chinese translations of terms too specific to be in dictionaries, but that's about it.
Thanks, that is alarming.
Post a Comment