[tablespoon]

> Could you elaborate on this? If it is full of garbage a couple examples should be very easy to find.

I could give examples but I won't, because that would link my HN and Wikipedia accounts.

> So "garbage puffed up beyond all belief" and "full of terrible and fake citations that lead to nowhere" sounds a bit hyperbolic, tbh.

People unironically describe it as the "sum of all human knowledge," so it's definitely puffed up beyond belief. In reality, much of it is a slow battle of tendentious agenda-pushing, by people with weird personalities, played according to an arcane rule book (the first unstated rule of which is to never, ever acknowledge that you're pushing an agenda). That doesn't taint all of it, but it taints far more than you'd think.

[gptgpp]

I mean... There are lots of ways to browse Wikipedia offline without having your IP recorded, absent using something simpler like a VPN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download

I can understand if this is just too much effort to put into an online discussion though, I probably wouldn't bother myself.

And yeah there have been lots of scandals with Wikipedia. This one was pretty infamous:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-...

Ironically I think your attitude probably protects Wikipedia quite a bit, and from that perspective I'd like to see more of it. The less people see it as a good source of information, the less incentive there is for all of the agenda-pushing you've described (which also definitely happens).

I still think the bulk of it is pretty decent though, on non/less-polarizing subjects, which describes most of IMO.

My main issue is that most articles are an inch deep. I find myself using textbooks and journal articles more often these days, while sailing the open seas as this would otherwise be cost prohibitive.

[mountainb]

If we look at the Vulture Bee article, it cites a couple semi-relevant journal articles (which do exist but are not exactly on point for a general citation), but then it inflates the number of citations pointlessly by citing multiple pop news articles that all cite one of the previously cited research papers, and some of which just blogspam link to the other useless popular science magazine citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_bee

In many history articles, there are random citations to web pages without any provenance that claim to be translated documents. Sometimes this is done despite the existence of reliable public databases of such documents available through universities, foundations, and governments. Then there is the link rot problem which gets worse over time.

[sedev]

The link rot problem is real but Wikipedia editors have _diligently_ institutionalized automated use of the Internet Archive and other snapshotting sites (but the IA is the best one & deserves donation support). So compared to the average among other sites, Wikipedia has much less of a link rot problem.

[gjvc]

I could give examples but I won't, because that would link my HN and Wikipedia accounts.

How?

[miguelazo]

THIS: "people with weird personalities"

Seen it way too many times for it to be a coincidence.

[tablespoon]

> Seen it way too many times for it to be a coincidence.

It's definitely not a coincidence. Wikipedia is structured to actively select for it.

[datavirtue]

I think I know what you mean but "weird" is subjective.

[hutzlibu]

You could use a throwaway account, if you really have those mindblowing examples to share.

So far all of the claims of Wikipedia as a pile of shit never had a real base to me. And political topics are controversial by its nature. There are authorative sources saying Marxism(Capitalism, or whatever) is good and Marxism(Capitalism) is bad, so what is the right side, Wikipedia should present? It struggles to cover the middle ground of scientific consensus, saying those said this and they said that. Which is why scientific articles about biology or physics are way better of course, but sure, in its current state, Wikipedia is good for a overview of a topic, but to dive in, you should read the quoted sources.

Usually the first thing when I encounter something new, is indeed to check Wikipedia. And I am glad it exists. I know I cannot believe it fully, but I still trust it way more, than some random site that might be better, but how should I know at first glance?

To really study, I read the scientific books and papers about a topic and Wikipedia is a good start for that.

[foobarbecue]

Just use a throwaway

[tablespoon]

> Just use a throwaway

Too late now.