Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.

Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.

[+] masterspace@lemmy.ca -6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.

Listen man, even in the very good college that I went to, everyone starts at Wikipedia and then uses it's sources since if they're good sources then they'll be a helpful jumping off point.

Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.

Peer reviewed journal articles are not the lowest effort citation that the CIA could manipulate. Again, the wiki article has numerous sources (which I've read through), do you have any sources to contradict the information that they contain?

[–] intelshill@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago

You do realize that... The peer review process is not, inherently, robust, right?

There's a reason different publication venues have different levels of prestige. Nature and Science? Very prestigious. The Lancet? Very prestigious. NeurIPS? Very prestigious. The Journal of Genocide Research? Not so prestigious.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (39 replies)