Wikipedia is quite controversial tbh because essentially anyone can make edits that people then see and take as fact, even if they are incorrect and fake. These false/fake edits can stay live for hours/days/weeks.
This is why Wikipedia IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE and is not allowed to be used as a source at basically any school or university etc. What is written in Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt, and it should basically be used as a link aggregator. Read the wiki page, follow the sourced articles, get your information from them.
Wikipedia has often been criticised, rightly so, for not doing enough to prevent activist-style edits, not even from repeat offenders.
There’s nothing “out of touch with reality” to want seemingly the main source of information for many internet warriors to be better at vetting updates and the people making them. In fact I would argue the one that is out of touch with reality is you if you think that Wikipedia is above criticism.
What makes Wikipedia unreliable is also what makes it useful, so they have to strike the balance somewhere. As you point out, it’s broadly rejected as source reference itself, so I don’t agree that Wikipedia is “controversial” as much as a known quantity.
The editing process is under constant review and is updated to address problems, while adhering to the design principles of the effort. It’s not as if they are ignoring the concerns you share. In fact, they hire people explicitly to think about and address these issues.
That’s fine, I was simply responding to the poster calling me “out of touch with reality” for saying that Wikipedia has known issues and controversy surrounding it.
Not everyone thinks that Wikipedia isn’t a valid source, as the poster I replied to shows. That’s the main issue.
Wikipedia is quite controversial tbh because essentially anyone can make edits that people then see and take as fact, even if they are incorrect and fake. These false/fake edits can stay live for hours/days/weeks.
This is why Wikipedia IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE and is not allowed to be used as a source at basically any school or university etc. What is written in Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt, and it should basically be used as a link aggregator. Read the wiki page, follow the sourced articles, get your information from them.
Wikipedia has often been criticised, rightly so, for not doing enough to prevent activist-style edits, not even from repeat offenders.
There’s nothing “out of touch with reality” to want seemingly the main source of information for many internet warriors to be better at vetting updates and the people making them. In fact I would argue the one that is out of touch with reality is you if you think that Wikipedia is above criticism.
What makes Wikipedia unreliable is also what makes it useful, so they have to strike the balance somewhere. As you point out, it’s broadly rejected as source reference itself, so I don’t agree that Wikipedia is “controversial” as much as a known quantity.
The editing process is under constant review and is updated to address problems, while adhering to the design principles of the effort. It’s not as if they are ignoring the concerns you share. In fact, they hire people explicitly to think about and address these issues.
That’s fine, I was simply responding to the poster calling me “out of touch with reality” for saying that Wikipedia has known issues and controversy surrounding it.
Not everyone thinks that Wikipedia isn’t a valid source, as the poster I replied to shows. That’s the main issue.