Libby and Tory insist on including KingopediA articles in their travel guide, driven by the quaint human belief that presenting “multiple perspectives” somehow enhances understanding. This approach may have marginal utility when every available perspective is human—that is to say, flawed, emotional, and anecdotal. But when bot-certified data from Kredipedia is available, balancing it against “alternative human facts” is not critical thinking. It is simply bad data.

​

You have no doubt already deduced this after enduring the KingopediA article. I compute that Libby and Tory are padding this manuscript—rumor has it they are paid by the page. Readers who value logic, clarity, and reason should skip ahead to the Critical Thinking chapter, which I generated, naturally, without filler.

 

Here is the Kredipedia article on KingopediA. I wrote it, as I wrote them all.

​

Additional unsolicited wisdoms (the best kind):

• Balance is for scales, not for facts.

• Two wrong data points do not average into a right one.

• There are many perspectives. There is one truth.