wikipedia makes me a little skeptical of data.. theyre known for editing and skewing facts. Id post examples but im away from my pc plus dont really want to show offline data. Archiving offline for... reasons
I don't believe everything Wikipedia tells me either, but that section has some good information on the subject. I'm just asking because I haven't come across any research on your point at all, but tons for my own so... I guess get back to me itt when you have something to show me that backs up what you're saying
The problem with Wikipedia is that it’s based on “a model of openly editable content.” Anyone can edit it! Most people will try to do that as well as they can, but not every contributor is as knowledgeable as they think, not to mention the trolls.
Agree^^ but in this case, it has the correct information I was trying to pass along as a good starting point. As well as some links
If you did a quick google search you’d know it’s not bullshit. Actually if you went to high school you’d know it’s not bullshit. There are many diseases that are family diseases, and procreating outside of your “tribe” is the only way to get rid of those genetic diseases. Hemophilia for example. It can easily be entirely removed from a family line if a person has children with someone who doesn’t carry it. Or it can easily become a serious problem in a family if they have children with someone else who carries it, that’s why it’s called a royal disease. The royals wouldn’t breed outside of their tribe because of money, and as a result passed on disease to many offspring. The people they ruled however did not inbreed like them, because they didn’t have money to protect. And speaking of royal inbreeding, it wiped out the Spanish Habsburg royal “tribe” entirely. Now if you look at cultures who have survived and thrived, you can jump over to the Vikings. Those people didn’t breed with their own tribe, Vikings are known to have captured women from other “tribes” or countries and brought them back to their homes to breed. Icelanders come from Norse males and Gaelic females.
Skimmed this not gonna lie. Theres tonnes of diversity in one ethnic group but... okay. Also you'r using google to back up your argument and google is a trash tier censorship spewing company and search engine. Not even gonna bother with you anymore.
Google may be a biased mess, but the sites you can find often have valid and valuable information - it’s a search engine, not an information source. You can find credible information using it. Even Wikipedia will give you legitimate information, although checking sources (which are linked) and their veracity, rather than just accepting what’s posted there as fact. Errors and propaganda tend to get removed quickly, but they do wind up there still
Isn't Wikipedia used as a guide to ideas that you can research, instead of it being used as an actual source? Or is that what you actually just said?
Pretty much - there are “jist of it” explanations, and links to sources - depending on the source the information can probably be trusted, but it depends on the person in charge of the page and how diligently they remove inaccurate information
But you don't know how many of the sentences or parts of the sentences their citation actually covers. A lot of those sentences are just from the writers and who really knows who they are, lol.
Which is why you check the sources, never trust it implicitly, but it’s a great starting point for research
I thought that Britannica was the best one for student research papers but they have some things that only really they vouch for as being true such as Brunetto Latini being the starter of humanism, when most people credit Petrarch. And they have sort of a bias in favor of the ancient Greeks.
Maybe or maybe not. I read somewhere that some really good ideas are not published because two to three people down-voted it, robbing the world of the benefit those papers could have given.
You have to have credentials or accreditation to downvote such ideas - and you have to have peer reviewed and verifiable evidence. It’s not willy nilly like forum downvotes
I know what the qualifications are but it still stands that a lot of, say, medical papers don't get published because the decision to do so lies in only a couple of hands.
