ok I have probably learned more about the world from Wikipedia than any other source, yeah it’s not good for political issues but let’s not pretend like Wikipedia is not the internet’s single greatest accomplishment: fully decentralized, free information sharing and education on an unlimited scale.
Also the scientific, mathematical, biological, etc. articles are usually like textbook-level.
As long as you remember that it is an encyclopedia then I think it’s actually pretty good. Yes, lots of the pages about contemporary political issues are full of CIA-posting, but you really shouldn’t be trying to get your political news (or understanding of theory) from an encyclopedia in the first place. That’s not what they’re for. Similarly, I think it’s fine that most of the articles aren’t written at much more than an undergraduate textbook level of sophistication. Again, if you want expert-level specialized knowledge about a complex topic, an encyclopedia shouldn’t be your go-to in the first place.
I think Wikipedia is fine, and I agree that it’s one of the few good things that remains on the internet: it is advertiser free, not paywalled, not run for profit, and freely accessible. It certainly has a strong bias, and the fact that people on will take it as the gospel truth about literally everything is incredibly stupid, but if you treat it as the very general tertiary source that encyclopedias are intended to be, it’s fine. This is one of my views that’s out of step with what seems to be the Hexbear consensus.
It considers CIA propaganda fronts legitimate sources and in general questionable sources, like random articles from businessinsider dot com, are accepted as citations when the article is about something considers ”bad”. It’s also known that the US government is involved in heavy astroturfing. We don’t call it NATOpedia for nothing.
Whatever, it is already trash.
it is very biased despite claiming to be objective but its a very useful tool. much more so than Twitter.
ok I have probably learned more about the world from Wikipedia than any other source, yeah it’s not good for political issues but let’s not pretend like Wikipedia is not the internet’s single greatest accomplishment: fully decentralized, free information sharing and education on an unlimited scale.
Also the scientific, mathematical, biological, etc. articles are usually like textbook-level.
As long as you remember that it is an encyclopedia then I think it’s actually pretty good. Yes, lots of the pages about contemporary political issues are full of CIA-posting, but you really shouldn’t be trying to get your political news (or understanding of theory) from an encyclopedia in the first place. That’s not what they’re for. Similarly, I think it’s fine that most of the articles aren’t written at much more than an undergraduate textbook level of sophistication. Again, if you want expert-level specialized knowledge about a complex topic, an encyclopedia shouldn’t be your go-to in the first place.
I think Wikipedia is fine, and I agree that it’s one of the few good things that remains on the internet: it is advertiser free, not paywalled, not run for profit, and freely accessible. It certainly has a strong
bias, and the fact that people on 
will take it as the gospel truth about literally everything is incredibly stupid, but if you treat it as the very general tertiary source that encyclopedias are intended to be, it’s fine. This is one of my 
views that’s out of step with what seems to be the Hexbear consensus.
You and I will face the wall together comrade
yeah it’s not decentralized but he’s right about everything else.
Hahahaha
Sci-hub, libgen etc
Libgen is infinitely better than Wikipedia. Not even a contest.
It’s not good for politics but it’s good for reading about science and animals most of the time
How so?
It considers CIA propaganda fronts legitimate sources and in general questionable sources, like random articles from businessinsider dot com, are accepted as citations when the article is about something
considers ”bad”. It’s also known that the US government is involved in heavy astroturfing. We don’t call it NATOpedia for nothing.
When it comes to heated political topics it is not very impartial, due to the opinions of the powerusers.
I agree that for a lot of stuff it is very useful, but still.
true but wiggapedia can still get a lot worse