Now it’s most of the time THE reliable source to go by. Wikipedia is great but it used to be anyone could do anything to it. In high school teachers didn’t accept it as a source. You had to use some Purdue owl thing and all that mla crap with some "scholarly sources ". I guess you still do. But Wikipedia has come a long way!
There will always be those who criticise it and see it as an unreliable source of information.
They’re just mad it’s so convienant and easy to use!!
I think there are some who think knowledge should be confined to a self appointed elite.
It is still not perfect but it had a surprising quality evolution.
I like Wikipedia and go to it frequently.
I think people have looked into it and found that it was in the upper 90s of % of how truthful it is. I think it was a study.
I’ve often wondered about the reliability of some sources on the internet. I got two very different accounts about the role of Alan Turing in breaking the German enigma codes in World War II. One source was saying that Turing got way too much credit, and there were other guys who did just as much as he did. They pretty much denied every invention he was given credit for. Another source said he was brilliant, and he almost single handedly broke the German codes. I guess these different accounts come from different sides of the culture war. I wouldn’t put it past both sides to lie about it.
I remember the olden days when there was no Wikipedia, no email, no internetz. It was a sad and boring time.
Back in the day I used to edit Wikipedia and was on it all the time just correcting articles.
Now it seems to be a lot more restrictive.
There were BOOKS!
Made out of PAPER!