People quoting Wikipedia to discuss history

"An event in history will never be fully understood" is what I said. Not "[historical analysis] goes into the trash".

I'm still butthurt that Wikipedia took down the Finno-Korean hyperwar page

You concluded with:
>The result is an opinion of an opinion of an event, which is useful to nobody
You started with that but ended with that it was useless, so garbage basically

>the Chad historian
>never read a wikipedia article in his life

Ok smartass this thread has the life expectancy of an hour or two, with the chance of being archived and remembered it exists.

NO ONE will waste much of their time to write you a college-level thesis with primary sources... On a thread in Veeky Forums...

Your typical Veeky Forumstorian is an above average autist, with some few being actual History Majors, and will NOT take any /thread seriously.

If wiki links are a fast, convenient, and sometimes credible summary of multiple sources, then it WILL be cited.

Now shut the fuck up, kill yourself, or stop complaining and lurk in a /thread or two and fucking enjoy yourself. It's not a big deal user... Don't take any source at face value, do your own research... Damn normies...

Thats it. This is all we need. No more replys.

>the virgin skim-reader

Because this is Veeky Forums. Very few people here actually read any history. This is just a different flavor of /pol/. When someone responds with actual, reputable citations or a genuine grasp of a particular area of history, the general response is silence, and a continuation of whatever prior shitposting that preceded it.

...

I’ve wrote a 4000 word essay for Veeky Forums once.

bugs...lay off the pseudo-marxism...

Was it about why traps aren't/are gay?

This

God I wish it was ironic.

>he thinks it's still 2005 and Wikipedia is written by random yahoos rather than experts with sources

It's 3679x easier and more accessible to link to Wikipedia, which almost always gives a decent overview of the topic, instead of throwing book titles around which most people don't have immediate access to.

the point is anyone can access wikipedo you moron if i wanted wikipedia information i'd go to fucking wikipedia

god you people are so driven and obsessed with being retarded

There are actual retards here. Be careful of what you say.

>tfw never read any history books
>instead skim through like a wiki warrior
>occasionally google searching the sources and reading 1-2 pages of the direct source from google book scans

Literally 60% of my historical knowledge.

Not only that, but if you actually check the citations and bibliographies of most wikipedia articles, they are depressingly short. Cite 3-10 sources in an entire article, most of which are either blog posts, opinion pieces, or online news articles, much of which is outdated and has been refuted by more recent scholarship, and apparently that's all that's required.

Not his related but.

>Be me, non-vegan.
>Tell vegan guy why I think veganism and/or heavy flaxseed/soy consumption is not good for male hormonal balance
>Tells me that my opinion is not scientific
>Spend 2 hours writing a short essay with six different medical sources
>No you are wrong, get a dodgy youtube link back

>reddit formatting
Opinion discarded.

You don't qoute something that requires citation on wiki though. No one does that.

can someone please explain to me what reddit fornatting is?

It's when you need to lurk more

Wiki is great for a cursory understanding and it has sources.

Besides, sometimes I use it to quickly put down an extremely wrong user like poltards or afrocucks

. For more nuanced discussion with an user on my level on a subject I'm knowledgeable about, wiki wouldn't be used.

Anyone can access but surprising few do. Half the stupid shit said here could be disproven by wiki.

Too true. You don't know how many well thought out responses I've written; only to be buried by shitposting. Why do I even try

Usually it is to inform someone of some basic high-school level history or about simple facts like the date of a battle.

Most of the time when someone asks for "sources" on Veeky Forums it's usually some ideologically-driven dumbass who says "Oh, but Wikipedia is Neo-Nazi SJW KKKike Soviet propaganda", and doesn't post any sources himself.
Even you take the time to find some books he will deny those anyway.

Wikipedia is a reliable source of information.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Veeky Forums shits on most sources anyway
>hurr that's pop-hist

Wikipedia is valid for most stuff.

okay

People on Veeky Forums most of the time dont even have the most basic understanding of the stuff they are talking about, so linking to Wikipedia is not an issue.
Its not like you will find any in depth discussion here

Because unless you are discussing something extremely specific, there's no reason to cite primary sources.

Besides, 90% of the threads on this board are about shit that have like 300 references on its Wikipedia page, like World War 2.

Also, it seems now like every article about something that's not a complete triviality is locked/protected and watched like a hawk by turboautists.

It works for providing a quick reference, especially if the claim has a reference within the article. I really don't care to look back through my books to find the source for some random shitposter. Most arguments here don't get too complex so chances are it's at a wikipedia summary level anyways. To be fair, Google books has helped out with the searching through books option so I have been using that as well.

>Kikepedia
>trustworthy

1) primary sources are often difficult to use
2) everyone knows how to use wikipedia
3) wikipedia articles are often sourced with primary sources

>Wikipedia articles are sourced anyway so why bother
wikipedia is absolutely biased in historical matters and is not considered a source by any academic means
take a look at the talk pages from time to time, it is a shitshow

Who else here /talkpage/?

They're hillarious as fuck and sometimes even more entertaining than the article itself

>it's an autists have a giant fight over some really minor, inconsequential detail episode

Yes, reading them looks very similar to /pol/

>no they aren't, [citation needed] exists for a reason
[Citation needed]

it's a fast source