I’m old enough to know that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source of information, alone.
But, unlike you, they cite sources and welcome scrutiny over their claims of truth. I’m not going to argue, anymore.
You’re falling dangerously deeper into fallacy, my friend. And the “no true authority” approach is quite childish.
I posted my public reply for others to have available SOME information, as much as I did for you… If not more, to be honest.
Take care.
Relying onto age to claim wisdom is plain arrogant which is the antithesis of wisdom, just as calling names instead of actually counter-statementing is plain incompetence. 😉
I personally tried to contribute Wikipedia and let me tell you that it is a tyrannical bureaucracy which rejects personal experiences over official consensus which would have forbidden Galileo to write that our planet is a globe because consensus said it was flat and that's it, Wikipedia even rejected concrete evidences that Jeanne d'Arc was in fact a french princess and not a peasant, that she was in fact a high-ranking templar knight and not an inexperienced warrior, that she married to a duke, that she had children with him, and that she did not die in Rouen, Wikipedia rejects anything which contradicts official consensus therefore it is not a neutral encyclopedia but a conditioning tool to conform people's world view. As for more meaningless topics, they just don't care about your sources as long as "someone said so somewhere on the web". And you rely on THAT to base or check your knowledge onto?! 😲
I wonder which approach is the more childish between self-thinking and questioning authority or relying onto authority to not question oneself, what do you think? 😏
