[throwaway09223]

That's a very silly take and is easily disproven. For example, pick any science topic at random. Let's look at Quantum Mechanics:

There are 81 citations. Of these, only 9 are not citing published books with an ISBN, or articles published in journals.

4 are citations to papers or articles published by physics professors on their university websites (Berkeley, Riverside, CUNY, Caltech)

Three are links to magazines: Quanta Magazine, Scientific American, Physics World

The remaining two are a link to the Nobel Foundation (regarding a nobel prize award) and a link to Merriam-Webster for a definition of "Quantum."

> At best you can get some people's opinion about something.

Nah, not even close.

[end_of_line]

And this is cherry picking. As studies show the quality varies strongly for historical, politically controversial and highly scientifical topics ( only few wikipedia editors ). Link https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3178876.3186132#BibP... So nothing "easily disproven"

[throwaway09223]

No, it's a counter-example which unequivocally disproves your inaccurate generalization.

Cherry picking can only occur if I'm generalizing, and I am not. Counter-examples aren't cherry-picking.

Your statement "At best you can get some people's opinion about something" has been disproven.

[end_of_line]

My thesis was "you can't take Wikipedia quality for granted" it fails to be objective on many topics. And your thesis is? Your counter thesis?