Who uses Wikipedia? I don’t, I’m made clear to my boys that they never use it, we don’t use it at my company.
Because it is unreliable, I never cite Wikipedia when I post on FR or any other site—and I get annoyed at those who do. I always find a more reliable source.
Wikipedia is a handy source for info on non controversial topics. But on anything controversial its completly unreliable.
Actually, people are banned from editing wikipedia articles that praise leftists.
Years ago I attempted to add to the 0pansy Bio the fact that he won the state senate seat by getting the court sealed documents of his opponents divorce leaked. Within minutes my entry was deleted. After trying a few more times, I was finally cut off from all editing privileges.
As stated by others, for less important, benign issues, wiki is useful. Else it should be avoided.
If you are interested in learning about the African dung beetle or similar nonpolitical subjects, Wikipedia is great.
If you are interested in ANY topic be it in science, history, biography, politics, etc that is remotely or could be seen by anybody as even remotely political, wikipedia is a biased Left wing cesspool.
So, caveat lector, semper fortis, and a diabolo, qui est simia dei. Wikiquote:
"Wherever God erects a house of prayer,We could update:
The Devil always builds a chapel there:
"Wherever rulers find us living to enjoy
They bind with morals for their employ.
Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia. And the edits usually appear immediately (although they can be taken down later).
And that can lead to some - shall we say - interesting “facts”.
For example, back in the summer of 2016 I went to Hillary Clinton’s Wikipedia entry to check about a date.
Some wag had inserted this in her biography: “Secretary Clinton’s hobby is collecting pictures of women’s bums. If you have a good picture of a woman’s bum, please send it to her.”
I couldn’t believe it! But there it was on Wikipedia, in black and white. I went back in about an hour to get a Print Screen shot of the entry, but it was gone by then. Too bad.
This is why I prefer hardcover reference books. Someone sitting at a keyboard somewhere can not change a books content by hitting the enter key.
An example is information on cities. Climate, politics, demographics. Hard numbers are difficult to fudge but can be tweeked in some cases.
But the overwhelming liberal bias is clear in history, current events, and social/political issues.
I use it with caution while searching other sources.
Wikipedia is only on illusion for idiots.
I cannot count the number of liberals that I have educated about Wackapedia. Anyone at anytime can edit it. Truth? Honesty? Hah!!
Pretty much agree with you (heck, Conservapedia has quite a few articles highlighting the leftist bias on Wikipedia, as you can see here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia). However, I do massively disagree with you on ONE thing, and that’s your inference that anarchism is of the far right. It actually isn’t of the far right, if anything, like Nazism and Communism, it is of the far left. Don’t believe me? Just look at Karl Marx, Mikhail Bakunin, Sacco and Vazetti, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Bill Ayers, Noam Chomsky, and the like, heck, even Pierre Proudhun, the guy who founded anarchism. You are right that Nazism is not even close to being right of center, let alone the far right, however.