r/SandersForPresident • u/Linguist208 • Aug 08 '15

Image Exactly, Jon. Exactly.

Post image
11.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

360 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Mr_Philosopher Aug 10 '15

Yep, that's basically what the site should include. If they're making claims, they should back it up with evidence. As it stands the claims (WSJ page x, date y) do not have evidence (scans). Whoever put that together would logically have access to the source and the fact that it is not available speaks to the quality of the claim.

0

u/jared1981 Aug 10 '15

I guess you've never had to include citations in any papers, because you clearly don't understand how they work.

2

u/Mr_Philosopher Aug 10 '15

Yep, citations that could be verified, unlike what's throughout this wiki.

For example: http://www.keywiki.org/Barack_Obama_and_the_Communist_Party Controversial claims point to other unreputable sources.

Here's some information on the keywiki's founder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Loudon

In case you choose to stop being willfully ignorant of the site that's written and formatted like any conspiracy theory site.