silly goose meekah

It was worse then, but the foundation of that argument is still a concern today. It’s pretty good, and I mostly trust it, I’m just saying it’s not perfect.

It does cite sources, however, many times I have tried checking sources only to find lackluster support for the statements being made in Wikipedia.

Just today I was looking at this page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigaer_94

It states, that the building in question was given to a Jewish organization, linking to 2 sources:

1997 wurde das Haus an die Jewish Claims Conference übertragen[2][3]

Looking at the sources, they just seem to claim that the building was once owned by a Jew. This explains why it might have been given to that organization, but it’s no proof for the statement being made.

I found several things like this over the years. I’d say this is a good 10% of the sources I bother checking.

Maybe German Wikipedia is worse somehow?

All that being said, I do trust Wikipedia mostly. I’m just saying, it’s the bare minimum IMO.

Yeah that’s true. I just think Wikipedia is the worst source one can use to support an argument. So anything below that is basically just “trust me bro” to me.

That “source” is worse than Wikipedia.

It worked just fine for me the other week. I did have issues with partitioning when I first used it like half a year ago

Absolutely, it just made me question the origin of that phrase that I assumed, because it also makes perfect sense here.

Who decided that bids from unlicensed workers were accepted? Ridiculous

Wait, the common phrase does come from a fiber thread though right? O.O

Nazis don’t have political beliefs, they have hate and violence. Big difference

Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring

huh?

I mean, it does match the original definition pretty well. Aa always it’s an issue of people having different definitions for the same word.