Yeah look there's lots of examples here of Wikipedia bias. And remember this is a participation inequality ecosystem where a tiny % of editors contribute most of the content.
Yeah look there's lots of examples here of Wikipedia bias. And remember this is a participation inequality ecosystem where a tiny % of editors contribute most of the content.
So yeah certain things are probably fine but a lot of the stuff you might wish to actually reference it for are no better than opinion pieces.
Basically a bunch of forum nerds trying to piece together the world and the reference material is frequently also biased. If you can mentally factor this in and perhaps read past some of the silly points it does have some utility.
Yeah look there's lots of examples here of Wikipedia bias. And remember this is a participation inequality ecosystem where a tiny % of editors contribute most of the content.
Few stories (of many)
https://www.piratewires.com/p/wikipedia-editors-war-uk-grooming-gangs-a-moral-panic?f=home
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin
https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased
https://wikipedia20.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/u5vsaip5/release/8
So yeah certain things are probably fine but a lot of the stuff you might wish to actually reference it for are no better than opinion pieces.
Basically a bunch of forum nerds trying to piece together the world and the reference material is frequently also biased. If you can mentally factor this in and perhaps read past some of the silly points it does have some utility.