Looking for a single source for all information is the pitfall. Wikipedia has and always been internet war on “narratives” whatever the field may be. It is perhaps a starting point for most generic of things. But when it comes to topics that are related to or with implications in cultural, political, geopolitics etc in nature, there is information war going on. And the winners are usually the side with the most number of people writing on wiki. To trust it as the ultimate source of facts would make one fallable to a more sophisticated form of influencing that we see on social media.
What would you then consider to be a “reliable source of information”? It sounds like your criteria for that are so high that it’s unlikely anything would reach up to that level. After all, should we ever trust any source as “the ultimate source of facts”? If all you wanted to point out was that noone can absolutely trust all of Wikipedia then fine I guess, but I would hope and doubt almost anyone here would have that mindset.
I would also say that many Wiki pages have a mix of overall neutral or positive-leaning text about the subject while e.g. a criticism section includes very good negative-leaning info. As an example, the Disney page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company) has mostly neutral or positive information about the company, no doubt much of which is written by Disney fans. But it also has a good and sometimes savage criticism and controversies section. I have of course seen Wiki articles that are very skewed, but I’ve also seen very skewed research articles, lexicon entries etc. Wikipedia’s rules and the community of moderators trying to apply them as best as they can gives it a better chance than many other sources to correct in time at least.
Another point is that less and less counts as “the most generic of things”. The basic facts of biological development, evolution, even meteorology and chemistry are being increasingly questioned with nonsense. There is an immense value in all the hard work poured into improving, spreading and preserving that “generic” information. Wikipedia is a collective treasure shared with all the world. It shouldn’t be taken as gospel, nothing should like you point out, but despite its imperfections it’s worth so, so much.
Wikipedia has ALWAYS been a war front, and not a reliable source of info.
Wikipedia is the least unreliable, accessible source of information by a long shot.
I don’t even know a single contender that maintains similar scope, accuracy and accessibility.
Looking for a single source for all information is the pitfall. Wikipedia has and always been internet war on “narratives” whatever the field may be. It is perhaps a starting point for most generic of things. But when it comes to topics that are related to or with implications in cultural, political, geopolitics etc in nature, there is information war going on. And the winners are usually the side with the most number of people writing on wiki. To trust it as the ultimate source of facts would make one fallable to a more sophisticated form of influencing that we see on social media.
What would you then consider to be a “reliable source of information”? It sounds like your criteria for that are so high that it’s unlikely anything would reach up to that level. After all, should we ever trust any source as “the ultimate source of facts”? If all you wanted to point out was that noone can absolutely trust all of Wikipedia then fine I guess, but I would hope and doubt almost anyone here would have that mindset.
I would also say that many Wiki pages have a mix of overall neutral or positive-leaning text about the subject while e.g. a criticism section includes very good negative-leaning info. As an example, the Disney page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company) has mostly neutral or positive information about the company, no doubt much of which is written by Disney fans. But it also has a good and sometimes savage criticism and controversies section. I have of course seen Wiki articles that are very skewed, but I’ve also seen very skewed research articles, lexicon entries etc. Wikipedia’s rules and the community of moderators trying to apply them as best as they can gives it a better chance than many other sources to correct in time at least.
Another point is that less and less counts as “the most generic of things”. The basic facts of biological development, evolution, even meteorology and chemistry are being increasingly questioned with nonsense. There is an immense value in all the hard work poured into improving, spreading and preserving that “generic” information. Wikipedia is a collective treasure shared with all the world. It shouldn’t be taken as gospel, nothing should like you point out, but despite its imperfections it’s worth so, so much.