User:Mwilli95/sandbox

I find it unfortunate that you can't use first hand testimony as a source, I believe wiki would be enriched by this, in certain circumstances.
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?

Wkiki's editors would probably be exclusively White males who are scholars and the privileged. Average people wouldn't be able to wrie about the information they wanted out there.
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

What I saw wrong with the Washington Post's coverage of Betsy DeVos conformation hearing is the negative association with everything that Betsy DeVos touched, like it seemed biased and painted her as a villain. Although the article did appear to be reliable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/

Yeeah this second one here seems very unreliable because the author includes many figures and "facts" without explaining where they came from. In my personal experience whenever numbers like those are presented they should be validated. Phrases like, "It gets worse" and "delusionally titled" make me suspicious, especially considering how its spelled wrong. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/17/cbo-trumps-obamacare-repeal-will-spike-premiums-50-one-year/

It's not honestly fair to say how terrible or great Donald Trump will be as president because he isn't in office yet, well he is but he hasn't had his first day in office yet. So this post is biased and unreliable. https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocratis/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/1392270180866032/?type=3&theater