Wikipedia is a wonderful online encyclopedia. It’s not a source and they don’t claim to be a source.
It’s a starting point for people who want to learn about a topic, it’s not evidence of anything.
If you actually go to the sources section of that link you’ll see they’re all secondary sources. For some reason, nobody can get reliable evidence on what is supposedly one of the biggest human rights violations in history.
The excuse is always that China is so secretive and tightly managed that it’s impossible to smuggle actual evidence out of the country. The best we can do is an endless stream of anonymous and semi-anonymous sources that keep changing their story.
Thanks for explaining how an encyclopedia works, I guess.
Of course an encyclopedia is going to cite mostly secondary sources, especially when covering a matter that cannot be proven based on a single account or piece of evidence. That’s not some kind of gotcha.
Personally I trust Wikipedia enough to assume they’ll cite mostly reliable secondary sources that are based on a significant amount of credible witness accounts and evidence (aka primary sources). Of course a bit of healthy skepticism is a good thing, so if you’d like to take a closer look at Wikipedia’s sources and what their claims are based on, more power to you!
I’m curious, how many of the 403 sources cited by Wikipedia did you look at before deciding none of them are based on credible primary sources?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
Wikipedia is a wonderful online encyclopedia. It’s not a source and they don’t claim to be a source. It’s a starting point for people who want to learn about a topic, it’s not evidence of anything.
If you actually go to the sources section of that link you’ll see they’re all secondary sources. For some reason, nobody can get reliable evidence on what is supposedly one of the biggest human rights violations in history.
The excuse is always that China is so secretive and tightly managed that it’s impossible to smuggle actual evidence out of the country. The best we can do is an endless stream of anonymous and semi-anonymous sources that keep changing their story.
Thanks for explaining how an encyclopedia works, I guess.
Of course an encyclopedia is going to cite mostly secondary sources, especially when covering a matter that cannot be proven based on a single account or piece of evidence. That’s not some kind of gotcha.
Personally I trust Wikipedia enough to assume they’ll cite mostly reliable secondary sources that are based on a significant amount of credible witness accounts and evidence (aka primary sources). Of course a bit of healthy skepticism is a good thing, so if you’d like to take a closer look at Wikipedia’s sources and what their claims are based on, more power to you!
I’m curious, how many of the 403 sources cited by Wikipedia did you look at before deciding none of them are based on credible primary sources?
That’s the neat part. They don’t! Why bother checking things when you can dismiss reality!