[datenarsch]

That's what it's still somewhat good for. I mostly use it to read about random history stuff I'm interested like medieval Europe etc. but avoid it completely for anything contemporary because it always has incredibly left-leaning bias.

I'm thinking of just getting a subscription for a real encyclopedia though because Wikipedia is often rather low quality in my opinion.

[Bud]

> Incredibly left-leaning bias

Read: fact-leaning bias

[FredPret]

If the facts support leftism, you should be strongly in favour of a completely neutral retelling of the facts and let reality speak for itself.

[Bud]

Which I am. As is implicit in my comment, for those informed enough to interpret it accurately.

[FredPret]

But when articles written about right-leaning figures are filled with condemnation instead of dry facts, while articles about left-leaning figures are laudatory instead of drily factual, it creates the opposite effect.

[mumin]

> Are we the baddies?

[FredPret]

I'm not talking about Nazis, just like how I'm also not talking about Marxists. I'm talking about Western politicians within the current Overton window.

[Leparamour]

>Read: fact-leaning bias

That is if you redefine what the words 'fact' or 'fact-checking' mean in the style of Orwellian newspeak.

[Bud]

Actually, no. Nice try, though!

[bobthechef]

Medieval history is often caricaturish as taught in school. I would not presume Wikipedia is free from the influence of centuries of Protestant and Enlightenment smears.