Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
If you're the type of person who is okay with sources that allow non-subject matter experts to contribute to the body of knowledge that establish the basis for which millions use for their baseline understanding of issues, then okay, we know the depths to which you will go to distill the facts - in a very slight figurative sense of course.
Just busting your chops SebC. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information, with the above caveat. Wikipedia should be your stepping off point - a place to find the most basic of information on a subject, and establish the artifacts which distill the facts on an issue from actual primary sources of information. Wikipedia is a worse version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I'm a big believer in the wisdom of crowds.
|
One can argue that the nature of language is such that words means what the crowds think they mean (screw you people who think literally means figuratively). Also, I found other sources that didn't specify at all who can censor, corroborating wiki's assertion that non-governmental actors can be censors. That's also something that's obvious just by thinking a bit. Self-censorship is a thing, and I am not a government.