I thought this article would have a substantive critique but it doesn’t. Quilette is absolutely not a reliable source. If you’re mad Wikipedia doesn’t trust a magazine that puts a faux intellectual veneer on early 1900’s race science, that’s a you problem, my good bitch, not Wikipedia’s. And the Daily Mail is so unreliable, I don’t trust it for rumors about soccer transfers and which celebrities are frenching in Ibiza. It’s a tabloid, not a reliable source.
For the record, Wikipedia doesn’t have an agenda against right wing sources. There’s plenty on their reliable sources list. They have an agenda against tabloids, quackery, and pseudoscience.
I thought this article would have a substantive critique but it doesn’t. Quilette is absolutely not a reliable source. If you’re mad Wikipedia doesn’t trust a magazine that puts a faux intellectual veneer on early 1900’s race science, that’s a you problem, my good bitch, not Wikipedia’s. And the Daily Mail is so unreliable, I don’t trust it for rumors about soccer transfers and which celebrities are frenching in Ibiza. It’s a tabloid, not a reliable source.
For the record, Wikipedia doesn’t have an agenda against right wing sources. There’s plenty on their reliable sources list. They have an agenda against tabloids, quackery, and pseudoscience.
So you admit they do have a bias against right-wing sources!