You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] rwbj 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'd assume he's likely referencing climate change given that this is Voat in spite of the the fact that there are two different pages that exclusively discuss, at length, climate change denial.

I've no love for Wikipedia, but I do think the scientific topics are still at least decent introductions to topics. They have barriers to entry in the form of knowledge so you generally avoid the low brow social media warriors taking over the pages.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] mort ago 

I'm convinced that if biased scientific inaccuracy is as rampant on wikipedia as you claim, you'd have no problem finding one example and come with a very brief explanation as to why they're wrong. You probably remember enough to at least give a few pointers as to what subjects you were trying to correct.

I'm afraid I myself am not knowledgable enough to notice inaccuracies or bias in scientific articles in mostly any subject but computer science, and that's not known for being an extremely agenda driven field.

I would be very interested in seeing the bias or agenda driven inaccuracies in scientific articles on Wikipedia. If you can't even come with one example though, I'll have to assume you're bluffing.