blurg

Digging a little -- an article (from 2009) about an interview (2005) that paraphrases the interviewee is a little suspect. Chomsky's take on the interview, in his words: "Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear."

I dunno, that example is at least 3 steps removed (interviewer, editor, article writer) from a source that already speaks plenty clearly and doesn't need much more than to be read honestly.

Here's a start: Understanding Power has a PDF of all the sources in the footnotes of the book by the same name. Or, if you're really looking for voluminous elaboration, this purports to be a list of source references, sorted by publisher, with links to the books.

someone who can explain how the world really works.

And that person is?

This looks to be more an endorsement of moderation principles and rules, not determining truth of comments.

For the difficulties in determining what's true, see the kerfuffle about Media Bias Fact Check.

There's certainly a history of Unix and Unix-like forks; which is rather simple compared to the Linux distro forks (go right to the big pic).

There is something to this; however, there are historical examples of rather quick progress. FDR for one (public work projects and infrastructure, financial reforms, regulations, social security, etc.), when old and young, the president, government employees, the whole general public (with some exceptions), held to popular principles of egalitarian fairness against the few unconscionably rich. A time of tasty pills.

CDC Covid data, as of June 29, 2024.

Huh, that's so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:

It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.

So if those are considered fact-based, there's no need to delve further.

However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as "generally unreliable", recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

I haven’t read the graphic novel of the Handmaid’s tale, but I don’t know if I would read the book to 14 year olds.

This reads like the ugly kind of censorship. Where: 1) without knowledge of the graphic book, calling for its universal removal from school libraries. 2) not knowing if 14 year-olds should read it, ban it (i.e. ban all books that can't be read by the youngest library patron; a notion few books could survive). And 3) belittling people (calling those who disagree with uninformed censorship "ass-mad up the wazoo").

Now there is a little nuance to the post, but it's outweighed by crude assessments.

Though errors are somewhat monitored by Retraction Watch.