It’s kinda “funny” that protection against bias is second- and third- level references/ corroborations/endorsements, arms-length enough away to ensure neutrality and peer review, yet when those are amply available for something like, say, supporting the veracity of the Tanakh and New Covenant scriptures, to the tune of 10,000(?) supporting documents, it suddenly becomes, “Oh well, how do you know that’s what he really said, or meant? Maybe he was misheard or misunderstood or mistranslated, or maybe mistakes crept in over so many copyings.”
It is the worst when you find an article regarding something that you care about and it is full tripe and propiganda. I find those the most discouraging.
It’s kinda “funny” that protection against bias is second- and third- level references/ corroborations/endorsements, arms-length enough away to ensure neutrality and peer review, yet when those are amply available for something like, say, supporting the veracity of the Tanakh and New Covenant scriptures, to the tune of 10,000(?) supporting documents, it suddenly becomes, “Oh well, how do you know that’s what he really said, or meant? Maybe he was misheard or misunderstood or mistranslated, or maybe mistakes crept in over so many copyings.”
Well said!
It's all too clear that Wikipedia is agenda-driven, and that its principal agenda is not actually anything to do with making us better informed.
It is the worst when you find an article regarding something that you care about and it is full tripe and propiganda. I find those the most discouraging.