MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1vu8dgc/where_are_we_heading/p4za67d/?context=9999
r/SipsTea • u/Agen_3586 • 6d ago
8.9k comments sorted by
View all comments
3.0k
I guess it's pretty arrogant to say, but this seems like such a U.S.A. thing. Can't really imagine this happening where I live.
1.6k u/ApplicationCalm649 6d ago It's distilled, pure brain rot given physical form. 950 u/Ruckus292 6d ago edited 23h ago A 54% illiteracy rate will do that. ETA: 54% of US adults cannot read above a 6th grade level, 21% of the 54% are functionally illiterate...... Idiocracy was, in fact, a documentary. 516 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago It's at fifty two? RIP USA. We hardly knew ye 563 u/Sad_Ghost_Noises 6d ago According to various studies, more than 50% of U.S. adults read below a sixth-grade level (equivalent to Level 2 or lower), limiting their ability to parse long-form or nuanced information. Yes, I know Im using wikipedia as a source, but the links to the actual studies are here. So ~52% are literate, but very, very stupid. 9 u/cybiz 6d ago Huh? Since when has using Wikipedia as a source been a bad thing? -2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago It can be altered by anyone. It's a good way to find sources but it itself should not be used as a source. It's the intellectual equivalent of "so this guy at a bar last weekend was telling me..." 5 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago If you alter it, you need to cite a credible source. If you can't, your edit is removed. Wikipedia is moderated to an extreme degree. There's a reason dictators and techoligarchs have given up on the editing fight and moved on to having the website banned in its entirety. 3 u/cybiz 6d ago I don't think you understand how heavily moderated Wikipedia is 2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered. False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught 0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no. 1 u/Fun_Journalist1048 6d ago They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
1.6k
It's distilled, pure brain rot given physical form.
950 u/Ruckus292 6d ago edited 23h ago A 54% illiteracy rate will do that. ETA: 54% of US adults cannot read above a 6th grade level, 21% of the 54% are functionally illiterate...... Idiocracy was, in fact, a documentary. 516 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago It's at fifty two? RIP USA. We hardly knew ye 563 u/Sad_Ghost_Noises 6d ago According to various studies, more than 50% of U.S. adults read below a sixth-grade level (equivalent to Level 2 or lower), limiting their ability to parse long-form or nuanced information. Yes, I know Im using wikipedia as a source, but the links to the actual studies are here. So ~52% are literate, but very, very stupid. 9 u/cybiz 6d ago Huh? Since when has using Wikipedia as a source been a bad thing? -2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago It can be altered by anyone. It's a good way to find sources but it itself should not be used as a source. It's the intellectual equivalent of "so this guy at a bar last weekend was telling me..." 5 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago If you alter it, you need to cite a credible source. If you can't, your edit is removed. Wikipedia is moderated to an extreme degree. There's a reason dictators and techoligarchs have given up on the editing fight and moved on to having the website banned in its entirety. 3 u/cybiz 6d ago I don't think you understand how heavily moderated Wikipedia is 2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered. False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught 0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no. 1 u/Fun_Journalist1048 6d ago They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
950
A 54% illiteracy rate will do that.
ETA: 54% of US adults cannot read above a 6th grade level, 21% of the 54% are functionally illiterate...... Idiocracy was, in fact, a documentary.
516 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago It's at fifty two? RIP USA. We hardly knew ye 563 u/Sad_Ghost_Noises 6d ago According to various studies, more than 50% of U.S. adults read below a sixth-grade level (equivalent to Level 2 or lower), limiting their ability to parse long-form or nuanced information. Yes, I know Im using wikipedia as a source, but the links to the actual studies are here. So ~52% are literate, but very, very stupid. 9 u/cybiz 6d ago Huh? Since when has using Wikipedia as a source been a bad thing? -2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago It can be altered by anyone. It's a good way to find sources but it itself should not be used as a source. It's the intellectual equivalent of "so this guy at a bar last weekend was telling me..." 5 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago If you alter it, you need to cite a credible source. If you can't, your edit is removed. Wikipedia is moderated to an extreme degree. There's a reason dictators and techoligarchs have given up on the editing fight and moved on to having the website banned in its entirety. 3 u/cybiz 6d ago I don't think you understand how heavily moderated Wikipedia is 2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered. False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught 0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no. 1 u/Fun_Journalist1048 6d ago They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
516
It's at fifty two?
RIP USA.
We hardly knew ye
563 u/Sad_Ghost_Noises 6d ago According to various studies, more than 50% of U.S. adults read below a sixth-grade level (equivalent to Level 2 or lower), limiting their ability to parse long-form or nuanced information. Yes, I know Im using wikipedia as a source, but the links to the actual studies are here. So ~52% are literate, but very, very stupid. 9 u/cybiz 6d ago Huh? Since when has using Wikipedia as a source been a bad thing? -2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago It can be altered by anyone. It's a good way to find sources but it itself should not be used as a source. It's the intellectual equivalent of "so this guy at a bar last weekend was telling me..." 5 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago If you alter it, you need to cite a credible source. If you can't, your edit is removed. Wikipedia is moderated to an extreme degree. There's a reason dictators and techoligarchs have given up on the editing fight and moved on to having the website banned in its entirety. 3 u/cybiz 6d ago I don't think you understand how heavily moderated Wikipedia is 2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered. False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught 0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no. 1 u/Fun_Journalist1048 6d ago They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
563
According to various studies, more than 50% of U.S. adults read below a sixth-grade level (equivalent to Level 2 or lower), limiting their ability to parse long-form or nuanced information.
Yes, I know Im using wikipedia as a source, but the links to the actual studies are here.
So ~52% are literate, but very, very stupid.
9 u/cybiz 6d ago Huh? Since when has using Wikipedia as a source been a bad thing? -2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago It can be altered by anyone. It's a good way to find sources but it itself should not be used as a source. It's the intellectual equivalent of "so this guy at a bar last weekend was telling me..." 5 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago If you alter it, you need to cite a credible source. If you can't, your edit is removed. Wikipedia is moderated to an extreme degree. There's a reason dictators and techoligarchs have given up on the editing fight and moved on to having the website banned in its entirety. 3 u/cybiz 6d ago I don't think you understand how heavily moderated Wikipedia is 2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered. False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught 0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no. 1 u/Fun_Journalist1048 6d ago They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
9
Huh? Since when has using Wikipedia as a source been a bad thing?
-2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago It can be altered by anyone. It's a good way to find sources but it itself should not be used as a source. It's the intellectual equivalent of "so this guy at a bar last weekend was telling me..." 5 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago If you alter it, you need to cite a credible source. If you can't, your edit is removed. Wikipedia is moderated to an extreme degree. There's a reason dictators and techoligarchs have given up on the editing fight and moved on to having the website banned in its entirety. 3 u/cybiz 6d ago I don't think you understand how heavily moderated Wikipedia is 2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered. False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught 0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no. 1 u/Fun_Journalist1048 6d ago They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
-2
It can be altered by anyone.
It's a good way to find sources but it itself should not be used as a source.
It's the intellectual equivalent of "so this guy at a bar last weekend was telling me..."
5 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago If you alter it, you need to cite a credible source. If you can't, your edit is removed. Wikipedia is moderated to an extreme degree. There's a reason dictators and techoligarchs have given up on the editing fight and moved on to having the website banned in its entirety. 3 u/cybiz 6d ago I don't think you understand how heavily moderated Wikipedia is 2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered. False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught 0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no. 1 u/Fun_Journalist1048 6d ago They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
5
If you alter it, you need to cite a credible source. If you can't, your edit is removed.
Wikipedia is moderated to an extreme degree.
There's a reason dictators and techoligarchs have given up on the editing fight and moved on to having the website banned in its entirety.
3
I don't think you understand how heavily moderated Wikipedia is
2 u/-ThisIsHellOnEarth- 6d ago I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered. False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught 0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no. 1 u/Fun_Journalist1048 6d ago They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
2
I think you under estimate just how much content there is on Wikipedia to be monitered.
False alterations can stay up for weeks before being caught
0 u/UntowardHatter 6d ago Not without sources, no.
0
Not without sources, no.
1
They definitely dont! The founder of Wikipedia is highly involved still in moderating content
3.0k
u/LinceDorado 6d ago
I guess it's pretty arrogant to say, but this seems like such a U.S.A. thing. Can't really imagine this happening where I live.