https://100percentfedup.com/new-york-ti ... is-better/
. Stop.
2. Investigate the source.
3. Find better coverage.
4. Trace claims, quotes and media to the original context.
“The four steps (SIFT) are based on the premise that you often make a better decision with less information than you do with more.”
Yes, this is actually a quote. And, while the 4 steps would be difficult to argue against on the surface, they are quite perfunctory and pernicious in their simplicity and vagueness. It turns out, simplicity and vagueness do not form well-researched opinions. So, why use them as a guide to research?
In Steps 2 and 3, Caulfield tells you to investigate the source and find better coverage. However, in the article he tells you to use Wikipedia as perhaps your primary starting point for sources.
Wikipedia has become so far-left biased that its own founder exited the company years ago and came out against his own platform. He wasn’t just raising the alarm, he literally called the site “dead” stating that it was “broken beyond repair” as early as 2007. In 2021, he continued to bemoan the leftwing bias in a Foxnews interview. In fact, he wrote an entire rant on the subject of how badly biased Wikipedia had become.
I remember the moment wikipedia became a joke to me personally. I had some trifling disagreement (or misunderstanding) with a forum member, and during that time, the same name showed up in a wikipedia edit, adjusting the reputation of some academic he didn't like.
It reminded me of how easily-manipulated the site could be, by a few motivated activists, or kooks.
Damned shame. Like Napster, it was good while it lasted.
