What’s the point of steps two and three when step four seems to suggest you’ve already decided what conclusion you want them to come to?

You also need to be an evil shit to stay at the top

Well, silver lining is now liberals might actually check to see if Wikipedia is getting it’s claims from right wing pundits.

“youghurs”

We’re already at that point

What are we, a bunch of Asians?

I feel like Annihilation ended up feeling more like a film version of Colour Out of Space than the COoS film did.

Ok. I think the same about you.

Do you think that European countries want to go on an offensive war with Russia or something?

Yes, obviously.

No, the discussion has always been about a defensive one

“Defensive” in the “pre-emptive defence” sense

There’s a big difference between not being a fan of Russia and wanting a cataclysmic war with them

and Wikipedia is not even in the top 1000 of disinformation peddlers.

And you determined this how?

They make mistakes, but they aren’t literally lying and propagandizing millions of people on purpose.

And you determined this how?

Then information hygiene went to shit. Now it’s a rare oasis in the current landscape.

It went to shit because people started treating low quality sources like Wikipedia as “a rare oasis”.

The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is not the source of misinformation/disinformation in this world.

Are you sure about that?

What I meant was that my question wasn’t about how to distinguish between reputable and unreliable sources – I think most Lemmy users are capable of doing that.

Well that makes one of us. My experience is that most Lemmy users think Wikipedia was written by God himself.

It’s not of course, but it’s a good start. Certainly good enough to use as a quick but fallible reference:

No, it really isn’t. The fact that Wikipedia has been arbitrarily vested with such supreme authority to be the default source of truth by so many people is a big part of why misinformation is so common. Back in my day, even high schoolers were taught not to do that.

The fact that you said you’re concerned with verifying information

Yeah, western right wing neoliberal misinformation only.

How are you going to counter misinformation if you can’t determine what is and isn’t misinformation?

Wikipedia and podcast/interviews

If you’re want to know how misinformation got so prominent, look at this as a good start.

Anything politically motivated is likely a shill

Do you apply this to any political content? Or just politics you disagree with?

bad (eg not recommended by Wikipedia)

If you want to know why misinformation is so prominent, the fact that you think this is a good standard is a big part of it.

Step 1 is teaching journalism and social media hygiene as a dedicated class in school

And will those classes be teaching “Wikipedia is the indisputable rock of factuality, the holy Scripture from which truth flows”?