Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.
It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim
If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.
it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it
Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.
But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.
If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.
Unlikely. People won’t put in the work to decipher you, so it’s a poor methodology for convincing anyone.
But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.
It’s not presumptuous because the point is they’re uneducated on the subject, and they should read the link to understand what they’re saying before they say it.
That they’re stating facts that are not in evidence, but if they read the article that the link points to then they would be better educated and can revise their comments if they want to.
Why should my point, which is contain in the article, be repeated when the article can just be read?
It’s like if somebody says they know how to fly a plane, and to describe it like driving a tractor trailer, you tell them that’s wrong and you hand them a manual on how to fly a plane, instead of starting to instruct them on how to fly a plane.
In other words, the point was not a minimal one, and would take much verbage on my part to reply to here on Lemmy, versus just giving them a knowledge base for them to read, from that makes the point for me.
Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.
If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.
Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.
But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.
Unlikely. People won’t put in the work to decipher you, so it’s a poor methodology for convincing anyone.
You’ve also got facts wrong, as mentioned above.
It’s not presumptuous because the point is they’re uneducated on the subject, and they should read the link to understand what they’re saying before they say it.
That they’re stating facts that are not in evidence, but if they read the article that the link points to then they would be better educated and can revise their comments if they want to.
Why should my point, which is contain in the article, be repeated when the article can just be read?
It’s like if somebody says they know how to fly a plane, and to describe it like driving a tractor trailer, you tell them that’s wrong and you hand them a manual on how to fly a plane, instead of starting to instruct them on how to fly a plane.
In other words, the point was not a minimal one, and would take much verbage on my part to reply to here on Lemmy, versus just giving them a knowledge base for them to read, from that makes the point for me.