Reliable sources: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎See Also: alphabetic autism; added "wp:dailymail"
imported>Zew0
(changed myspace reference to something current)
imported>Sidecar
(→‎See Also: alphabetic autism; added "wp:dailymail")
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
==What is a reliable source?==
==What is a reliable source?==
Whilst [[you]]r website is unreliable, your [[blog]], [[Facebook]] or [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] is dismissed as unreliable by elitist [[cunts]], some of the content in the [[old media]] is reliable, as long as it isn't targeted towards the working class, because they're [[ignorance|ignorant]] and they don't care if they're being [[Rupert Murdoch|spoonfed lies]].
Whilst [[you]]r website is unreliable, your [[blog]], [[Facebook]] or [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] is dismissed as unreliable by elitist [[cunts]], some of the content in the [[old media]] is reliable, as long as it isn't targeted towards the working class, because they're [[ignorance|ignorant]] and they don't care if they're being [[Rupert Murdoch|spoonfed lies]].
 
[[File:Wikipedia pearl harbor advance knowledge article reliable source.png|thumb|400px|"You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"]]
Since Wikipedia is not the news (they have [[David Shankbone|Wikinews]] for that, [[lawl]]) there are a few other types of reliable sources. These include [[college|academic]] papers that have been [[anal|preferably published in peer-reviewed journals]], and books on certain subjects. However if the Wikipedo determines that the source is not [[NPOV]], then they will be deemed unreliable for promoting "[[JEWS DID WTC|fringe theories]]". This does a [[sarcasm|great fucking deal to advance]] "the sum of all human knowledge", because crappy magazine articles published by people paid by the government to numb the thoughts of the masses are instantly seen as reliable, whilst [[truth|shocking relevations]] must be kept out for the fragile little minds of the readership.
Since Wikipedia is not the news (they have [[David Shankbone|Wikinews]] for that, [[lawl]]) there are a few other types of reliable sources. These include [[college|academic]] papers that have been [[anal|preferably published in peer-reviewed journals]], and books on certain subjects. However if the Wikipedo determines that the source is not [[NPOV]], then they will be deemed unreliable for promoting "[[JEWS DID WTC|fringe theories]]". This does a [[sarcasm|great fucking deal to advance]] "the sum of all human knowledge", because crappy magazine articles published by people paid by the government to numb the thoughts of the masses are instantly seen as reliable, whilst [[truth|shocking relevations]] must be kept out for the fragile little minds of the readership.


For example, when a shitty article about [[lolcat]]s is published in a 'reliable source', that instantly makes the subject '[[notable]]', because the journalists who write that [[shit]] are paid to do what would be called original research if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, but since the select few supposedly have control over what people think just because they write for the old media, it becomes a case of these journalists having the power to shape knowledge for the future. And believe us at [[ED]], they won't do it in a good way. Fuck the [[lie|misnomer]] 'reliable source', [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] is the only source of truth on the [[internets]]. Even [[4chan]] has "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and false[[clitoris|hood]]. Only a [[you|fool]] would take anything posted here as [[fact]]." at the top of its /[[b]]/ page, and even it contains a whole lot more information than Wikipedia that is actually useful.
For example, when a shitty article about [[lolcat]]s is published in a 'reliable source', that instantly makes the subject '[[notable]]', because the journalists who write that [[shit]] are paid to do what would be called original research if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, but since the select few supposedly have control over what people think just because they write for the old media, it becomes a case of these journalists having the power to shape knowledge for the future. And believe us at [[ED]], they won't do it in a good way. Fuck the [[lie|misnomer]] 'reliable source', [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] is the only source of truth on the [[internets]]. Even [[4chan]] has "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and false[[clitoris|hood]]. Only a [[you|fool]] would take anything posted here as [[fact]]." at the top of its /[[b]]/ page, and even it contains a whole lot more information than Wikipedia that is actually useful.
==See Also==
==See Also==
*[[The Bible|Bible (Holy)]]
*[[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]
*[[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Wikipedia]]
*[[Wikipedia]]
 
*[[WP:DAILYMAIL]]


{{WP}}
{{WP}}
[[Category:Wikis Suck]][[Category:Chans]]
[[Category:Wikis Suck]][[Category:Chans]]
Anonymous user

Navigation menu