Maybe I need to add a section (in bold, flashing red text?) reiterating that you need to read the citations and not rely on the content?
This recent example is awful, yes, but relied heavily on a Wikipedia project which has less strict referencing rules, and was consumed by people who didn't take the time to fact-check — we're about on par with Encyclopedia Britannica (ref: https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a)
Wikipedia is deeply politically biased. Even reading the quotes, there is no guarantee of any truth as the admins quote many pseudo-experts who follow their ideology (often politically left). In short, Wikipedia is reliable only for topics that are far from politics, or that are supported by hard science.
I really feel like the lack of well-structured citations is what's keeping many Wikipedia articles back. It's just not good enough to throw some paper reference (potentially behind a paywall) or a news article after a full paragraph of text.
Often when editing a page, I am left wondering where exactly the previous editor has gotten a fact from. The Wiki markup even allows "quotes", i.e. short extracts of what exactly you're referring to, but I've yet to see anyone beside myself actually use it consistently.
Having a structured list of references for a given topic in a Wikipedia article is incredibly helpful!
I mean, there is even stuff like linking to pages in PDF files... but I feel like it's another feature that's rarely used.
Maybe, in an ideal world, I could imagine an editing experience with a split screen editor with the article text and the references open at the same time. Right now, it does feel like references are an afterthought in the editing workflow.
Just one very recent example: https://www.engadget.com/chinese-wikipedia-editor-fake-russi...