• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I was just reading about it. It’s another web encyclopedia trying to incorporate other encyclopedias to compete against Wikipedia’s biases.

      This is an archived article from the guy who first wrote about the “ghost cities.”

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’ll reserve judgment until I find more information. It could be a good thing, Wikipedia does have problems with editors changing articles, or it could be a bad thing to proliferate misinformation. That’s why I linked the Reuters article.

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Someone already showed that the linked article was outdated nonsense almost the minute it was published.

              Where? Everything I’m reading says that most of the new state-level areas are inhabited and not “ghost cities.” Unless Ohio State is wrong.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  I care about the facts and the truth, not the source, as should you.

                  But I notice you ignored all the left-wing sources I provided that demonstrates the new areas in China are populated and not “ghost cities,” so I’m guessing none of this actually matters to you anyway.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    This is what you said which started this conversation:

                    I was just reading about it. It’s another web encyclopedia trying to incorporate other encyclopedias to compete against Wikipedia’s biases.

                    I showed you that the whole thing is about Wikipedia not having a right-wing bias.

                    I thought you cared about facts and truth?