[bad_username]

Wikipedia rides its old reputation but it has long been taken over by ideologues. It is still great for information on math, physics, engineering, comp sci, etc. But anything politics, political science, history, and partially philosophy is very biased and this bias is practically impossible to offset.

[renegat0x0]

Powers in this world wants control. It is impossible to create a reliable source of political news.

Politicians however have no incentive to manipulate math, physics, engineering, etc.

Humanistic subjects however are a target as it is commonly used for propaganda, to divert attention from economics, etc. etc. Unfortunately there are many people who can easily be distracted by this hook.

[tivert]

> Politicians however have no incentive to manipulate math, physics, engineering, etc.

IMHO, Wikipedia's main problem isn't with politicians (though, IIRC there's likely a fair amount of state-actor editing), it's with zealots.

You have to be deeply, deeply weird to be a Wikipedia editor, especially in a controversial topic area. My feeling is most of those editors are motivated by blatant ideological POV pushing, and their bad-faith motivations are only sublimated by Wikpedia's policies. Most of the conflict is in the form of elaborate passive-aggressive bureaucratic walls of text, which only the truly insane would willingly participate in.

Over time, as the editor population dwindles, it will become less and less diverse and more and more biased.