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.
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.