[hmrtn]

Wikipedia was never intended to be a be an arbitrator of truth. It is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and it's only purpose is to serve as a repository for information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject.

Opinions aside, it does an excellent job of that.

[noxer]

Have you ever tried to correct something on Wikipedia?

I did, many times its reverted by some account that has more rights than you due to the fact that he wrote more than you.

The system rewards people who write more with more power so the people who already wrote most of it also decide who or what can be added. Its a repository for information but its selected by people who have an aligned bias.

>it does an excellent job of that.

For the most part yes. If i want to read something about an animal, a chemical, a city etc. its perfectly fine. If its about politics related stuff its not. Historical stuff is also questionable sometimes.

[tpoacher]

I've had the same experience on stuff I'm either an expert in or even an original source.

[vixen99]

Excellent job? That's what is under debate and asserting that it does, adds zero content to the discussion.