I Don't Use or Trust Wikipedia Anymore.

Wikipedia is big cringe. There are systematic reasons why it is the way it is, but I mean also some articles just make you think they must've been written by furries or something... I don't use it at all anymore, removed it from my bookmarks and don't plan on using it ever again.

Here's the boomer blogpost I mentioned by Larry Sanger co-founder and long-time critic of Wikipedia:

[vlad.the.impaler.]

media be like: it says on wikipedia
wikipedia: sources:media

[andrew]

I never use Wikipedia for politics unless it's history related (like reading about how the Constitution was written). I use Wikipedia for science technology engineering and math topics 99% of the time. The kind of stuff that you can't really have bias about or things you can't fake. (like you cant fake the fundamental theorem of calculus)

[oj]

One of the best tricks is to use Wikipedia bilingually, if you really need to use it.

[mouwersor]

I finally managed to block wikipedia from search results (it tends to show up in the sidebar). It's insane how this propaganda-machine has wormed itself into practically EVERY search engine.

[Anonymous-hkcj]

Ok, but as you said, there is no real solution to Wikipedia, so I'll just use it with the filter implemented in my brain, as always.
I think it's very easy to distinguish "controversial" articles from articles on physics, mathematics, etc., which are 99% based on university articles, etc. Wikipedia is like all other websites, but its advantage is that you can easily check sources, discussions and other language versions of these articles. Therefore, you should be smart enough to verify before pressing those information into your brain.
Simple enough I think.

[Misterzr]

The Virgin Wikipedia vs the Chad 18th Century London Coffeehouse

[roi]

did you tried to create a page about yourself again?

[ElKotoTwitch]

it's plagued with "reviewers" who will apply their personal view on a subject and will delete whatever addition the don't agree with, not following the objective rules, they get admin levels based on activity and not on a knowledge base, it's a waste of time redact anything anymore you'll get everything deleted, they delete like if they get points for activity

[vashlash]

I only use wikipedia to check that early life button, when checking whos a member of the tribe

[MCLooyverse]

I use Wikipedia often, but I only really use it for math topics, or occasionally historical things. For current events, I just use memes.

[ertwro]

Hahaha, "come on Wikipedia. Accept this Reddit thread on Holocaust revisionism."

[joe_ferreira]

This is quite the rapid fire. I use Wikipedia to research established facts. Not news. Wikipedia news is just a aggregate for other sites. Please do a follow-up with examples of established facts that have bias in them. I would be very interested in that.

[VictorRodriguez-zpdo]

Wikipedia is just a source of information like many others. There's no such thing as a trustworthy source in my opinion, you just compare information from multiple sources and make a decision out of that.

[sonnenradrising]

idk I have found the Early Life section useful

[monad_tcp]

Wikipedia moderators are worse than redditors.

[johndou]

But Luke, how will I become buddhist by reading few lines of text from Wikipedia?!

[derick]

This makes me sad cause I write a lot for Wikipedia :(
It is true though, so many sources on rely on msm articles. I always aim to source from books and papers where I can, it's not a hopeless issue.
I'm happy though that you demonstrate some knowledgability about how Wikipedia is actually run and its policies; No Original Research is a pain in the ass sometimes but a line has to be drawn as to how to measure notability.

[proper_noun]

I only use Wikipedia for math and science and to see what the overlords of the world would like for me to believe.

[mrruhe]

Yep, Wikipedia is out of my life since 2012. It got so bad back then, can't even imagine how shit it is now.

[jonphinguyen]

I use wikipedia for the "EARLY LIFE" section