very few of the doctors that have dicks have foreskins, very few of the patients’ fathers have them either,
35.5% to 41.7% from 1979 through 2010 can in no reasonable way be called ‘very few’.
That is from the CDC (a real source)
And the concept of Wikipedia sounded good at the time but reality is different.
It is highly manipulable, as often happened and even their own ‘curation’ is on the highest level not transparent.
And what is stated in articles is not necessarily true since they indeed show sources but they can also be shit depending on who edits the article.
But most people won’t even look at them, “wiki says it’s so” and that’s that.
You can use it if you need to look something up about a flower but any controversial topic and certainly political stuff most certainly not.
35.5% to 41.7% from 1979 through 2010 can in no reasonable way be called ‘very few’.
That is from the CDC (a real source)
And the concept of Wikipedia sounded good at the time but reality is different.
It is highly manipulable, as often happened and even their own ‘curation’ is on the highest level not transparent. And what is stated in articles is not necessarily true since they indeed show sources but they can also be shit depending on who edits the article.
But most people won’t even look at them, “wiki says it’s so” and that’s that. You can use it if you need to look something up about a flower but any controversial topic and certainly political stuff most certainly not.
Anyway, enough about this.