848
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 216 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Just goes to show how easy history is to alter tho. If he can do this as a one-off for shits and gigs just think what the people doing it on purpose are up to. I feel like I can hear my AP history teacher screaming "PRIMARY SOURCES" from the farthest depths of my subconscious.

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 66 points 4 days ago

My AP history teacher liked to make up stuff. But like, he'd say he made it up right after telling the made-up thing.

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 53 points 4 days ago

TIL I’m your AP history teacher (just kidding, but I do enjoy recreationally lying to children)

[-] Skalix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Just like my old physics teacher. Heard stories about him telling the students, that Pd (Palladium) is named after him (his last name had the same abbreviation).

Also jokingly using the screen of a calculator as a scale for weighing metal ball bearings.

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 7 points 4 days ago

Was your brother my 6th grade history+english teacher who spent more of class time having recess or playing Risk (the board game) than anything else?

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago

Unfortunately, I’m an only child. But I could ask my sisters whether they have any siblings who fit that description.

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Or you could just lie and say that yes, that was indeed your brother.

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

♫ fun ways to lie ♫
♫ so many fun ways to lie ♫

[-] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 days ago

I mean that's a great illustration of the importance of those primary sources in a memorable way, especially if you're out of school now and it's stuck with you that long.

[-] Zwiebel@feddit.org 29 points 4 days ago

Primary sources make shit up too tho

[-] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 19 points 4 days ago

But if you read a primary source, that's one persom who had the opportunity to make stuff up. With a secondary source, even if the primary it's based on is legit, there's some other guy who wasn't there and may either be lying to you or misinterpreting the primary source his report is based on. Each new level of isolation adds another opportunity to stack both lies and mistakes onto the data.

It's not that you can't go wrong with primary sources. It's that you can go a lot wronger without them.

[-] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

Counterargument, secondary sources are often a good filter for bogus primary sources. This is the primary reason Wikipedia does not allow primary source references.

[-] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

That's very different. Wikipedia doesn't allow people to edit their own pages. They don't have rules against linking to interviews with persons involved in an event, for example.

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

The main problem with primary sources is that they are often involved in the event itself - or at least greatly affected by it - which makes them the most biased.

this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
848 points (99.3% liked)

Greentext

3987 readers
2470 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS