PokeVideoPlayer v23.9-app.js-aug2025_
0143ab93_videojs8_1563605_YT_2d24ba15 licensed under gpl3-or-later
ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #caaa4b (color 2)
Video Format : 136 (720p) mp4 | h264 | 44100Hz | 1144894 bps
Audio Format: 140 (AUDIO_QUALITY_MEDIUM) m4a | aac | 44100hz | STEREO(2channels)
PokeEncryptID: 3f0936cf9fe1e5ac4b62ff42baaf131100076538730530eca41315978327bf54caeb0e8eb7de302ebc09b20d916c9464
Proxy/Companion URL : woke-proxy.
Date : 1760093703754 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text?? : STJ4MGxOQzZXUmMgaSAgbG92ICB1IHdva2UtcHJveHkucG9rZXR1YmUuZnVu
143 : true
3,788 Views β’ 5 months ago β’ Click to toggle off description
Views : 3,788
Genre: Education
License: Standard YouTube License
Uploaded At 5 months ago ^^
warning: returnyoutubedislikes may not be accurate, this is just an estiment ehe :3
Rating : 4.945 (1/72 LTDR)
98.63% of the users lieked the video!!
1.37% of the users dislieked the video!!
User score: 97.94- Overwhelmingly Positive
RYD date created : 2025-05-07T14:54:22.897813Z
See in json
4 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
But for political information, I find that it's quite biased. For scientific or math related information, I do trust it.
Case in point, checkout the indo-china war page.
5 | 0
"Compared to what" gives you a control population; a "null hypothesis" then is that chosen reliability measures are the same for wiki and its controls.
2 | 0
It's wrong. Encyclopaedia Britannica has lesser coverage indeed. but it's facts are based on scientific studies and systematic analysis. and they maintain strict and honest standards. and not influenced by majority bias.
on the other hand for Wikipedia, any Tom Dick and Harry can add up any SHIT. but has wider coverage. but influenced by majority bias.
Encyclopaedia definitely enriches your brain capabilities whereas Wikipedia satisfies your sensuality.
Wikipedia is prone to manipulation whereas encyclopaedia maintain stringent scientific standards
| 0
@SanthoshKumar-so8tq
5 months ago
Wikipedia is biased and unreliable
1 | 0