[yeet_yeet_yeet]

> Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any controversial topics or people.

Maybe this is true for certain modern topics, but I was able to learn most of 20th century history due to Wikipedia. Want to read about MK Ultra? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra. Want to read about Japan's human experimentation program and how the US offered them immunity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731. Obviously this stuff is never going to be taught in school (maybe in undergrad history program, but who majors in history?). But it's on Wikipedia.

In terms of non-controversial topics, there's tons of value on Wikipedia as well. There is a broad collection of informative math and physics articles, I have read many of them and would argue they're useful. And also like one for every species of butterfly and virus.

In terms of modern AND controversial topics, I agree that Wikipedia is sometimes the target of some bullshit psyops and corporate whitewashing. But if you're willing to cut through that, lots of articles have useful information, like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War. Even the title is relatively unbiased (unless you're in the west :) ). You don't go to Wikipedia for a peer reviewed article that's 100% accurate and defensible, you go to get a straight answer that's 90% correct, when every journalist and public figure is spewing a load of hot shit. And that's why, for example, when you Google "Darrell Brooks" the top suggestion is "Darrell Brooks wiki".

So yeah, I gave them 100 bucks. I don't care what they do with it. If they donate it to the Dr. Evil Foundation for Evil or somebody, fine whatever. As long as Wikipedia stays up.

I have a backup as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download

[the_third_wave]

Given the examples of bias you provide - bullshit psyops and corporate whitewashing - and even more given the fact that you do not mention the political/ideological bias many if not most 'politically sensitive topics' have I can but assume that you do not notice that bias because it happens to coincide with your own standpoints and as such just assume those biased statements to be true and worthy of note. Just imagine what you would have thought of Wikipedia had all those entries been biased towards the 'other' side to get an idea of just how strong the bias is. Imagine a lauding article on e.g. Trump where anything critical of the man was quickly edited out. When you try to add some common sense to the clearly biased article you're met with a string of reverts without any clear explanation other that 'not noteworthy', 'unreliable source' or 'against the NPOV'. You try again and again but hit the same wall every time. After trying to add some balanced information to the clearly flawed entry you receive a warning from an administrator who tells you that edit warring is not tolerated.

That is what many if not most people mean when they state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any controversial topic or people.