Is it wrong if I get all my history from wikipedia?

is it wrong if I get all my history from wikipedia?

Good source for facts.
But history is all about interpretation and narratives. You have to turn to works of historians for that.

Not really so long as you don't act pretentious/know-it-all

Yes, there are editors there with profile pages that state their intended purpose of editing on wikipedia is to change the common understanding of events to be more friendly to their political position.

Yes. You'll be much happier whenever you decide to buck-up and read actually books. Listen to audio-books if they can't hold your focus. That's what I do.

Can you help me get started with this. I'm noob with computers and softwares.

(((Wikipedia)))

A biased encyclopedia

just download ebooks for free
knowledge should be free and accessible to everybody

But where can I find good audio ebooks? Torrent? I tried once and got a chinese virus

dont know
I have ADHD so I find it hard to concentrate on audio books

It's not their fault you Stormfags ruin everything.

But how do I know that I have ADHD

Mid-tier

There's plenty to critique wikipedia over but nothing in that image is a misrepresentation of fact.

1. Libraries exist, and they usually have a audio-book section.

2. Audible.com is very good if you're willing to pay for it, which I am. It's much cheaper than buying actual books, at least. Their return policy is great. If you start listening to something and suddenly realize you hate it, you can immediately exchange it for something else as long as you didn't buy it too long ago.

Read a book.

I'm but a poor student so I won't be able to afford it. Thanks tho user :)

Good place to find sources, but take it with a grain of salt.

I live in a really conservative area, and the only person I knew who openly talked about things like white pride was a guy who also talked about torturing cats and brought nazi medals to school

So long as the majority of people who talk about it are like that, your movement will be called out for what it is.

this,
also a good source for sources

>Good source for facts.
Wikipedia occasionally sources things wrong so even the "facts" need to be approached with skepticism. It does a good job of giving you an idea of what to look for next but actual information should be sought directly from the historians.

No, it has a pretty compact and unbiased way of delivering information. You could do a lot worse.

It's certainly not unbiased, especially going forward, but you can generally get the gist of things. Just don't get lazy. Recognize it for what it is.

It isn't wrong
white pride is viewed in a negative context whether or not this is justified

take 20mg of adderall and see if it makes you feel chill
i mean it's not a rule and some people just have a bad reaction but if a low dose of an amphetamine or something similar makes you feel chill you can pretty sure you have something off in the reward system of your brain that amounts to ADHD

>wikipedia
>unbiased
Literally any even slightly controversial topic is fucked beyond belief.

or, like, talk to a doctor if you can, that's usually a good idea
though of course if they think you do then you'll probably try that anyway

only good for dipping your feet in the water of a particular topic. otherwise you need books.

as for getting sources from wiki, its generally only good for broad topics. if you are into something a bit niche it can really fall apart

1. go on wikipedia and look at references/further reading/bibliography
2. look up the articles/books listed on gen.lib.rus.ec or sci-hub.bz
3. download them if possible
4. use the references/bibliography in the texts you just downloaded to expand further

Does wikipedia have a dark theme like youtube?

Nothing is wrong here, white identity is a purely American invention by retards like Don Black in an attempt to be more palatable to normalfags who might think Hitler was an asshole