Is Wikipedia good?

>I can't edit it to say niggers killed Kennedy and the Jews did 9/11.
>REEE FUKKEN PC NPCS

Half the mathematics articles are absolute trash, a bunch of the weapons ones have unverified or completely incorrect information with the talk section showing just how ass retarded the people editing the sections are. Wikipedia is okay if you want to get a middle school approximation of a subject, but any actual knowledge requires better sources.

Wikipedia is fine if you want to look up something like the freezing point for water.

Anything even remotely sensitive, anything of geopolitical importance and a lot of other things will be heavily censored and controlled.

Depends on which language

No, the administrators are dishonest scumbags

The admins are mostly psychopaths who are only there because of their own ego.

It is very "neutral and unbiased", as long as "neutral and unbiased" means "same viewpoint as the presiding mod". Articles that are under the care of a decent mod are decent. Other articles are basically reddit or Jow Forums-tier.

all of the articles are controlled by two editors who ruthlessly undo everyone else's edits, even when they try to contribute. most of the articles are poorly written and organized and don't explain the subject in any depth. the only people who have time to contribute are larping middle schoolers. any real academic who would contribute has to focus on publishing their own articles first and their edits can be undone in a swift click by the aforementioned psychotic editor that wants to keep the article as his own child. overall a useless source.

it's been a decent enough resource for everything i've needed it for

>all of the articles are controlled by two editors who ruthlessly undo everyone else's edits
who?

It's not bad but there will always be significant problems, since the quality of an article is entirely dependent on the sources that are used and the way in which the article is moderated. If the sources are from mass media or opinion sections then the article will be garbage.
This is why I trust the Wikipedia article on climate change but become instantly skeptical of the article on Donald Trump. Just gloss over the references and you'll see why: one uses of academic journals, the other doesn't have a single source for anything until 5 paragraphs in and all of them come from MSM outlets. The same problem with the Trump article applies to the article for Gamergate, I'm not a supporter of either but the difference in quality and objectivity between those two articles and an article on any technical subject is absurd.

(me)
Furthermore both articles are tightly protected from editing, whereas a typical article on some scientific subject will be semi-protected at most. The way that Wikipedia moderates articles is fucking ridiculous to say the least.

wikipedia's best articles are the ones that have nothing to do with the internet

Hi Wikipedia

Correct answer. Articles are degenerating. Aaron Swartz was right.

Those are the reasons I stopped contributing articles (not meaningless edits, but contents)

>enforced political correctness
It's actually just called correctness. It just so happens that the right believes lies more often than they accept the truth.
accepting climate change, the gender spectrum, civil rights, and egalitarianism isn't politically correct, it's just correct.

>any of those things
>objective truth
just kys my man

Weak bait

No.

Why would you donate to a leftist site?

>gender spectrum
>climate change
>are correct
Kys.
>civil rights
The left wants to abolish free speech, privacy and self defense. Those are the 3 most important civil rights.

For anything except Politics and History, Security related topics?
Yes
If an article is about anything above, its compromised.

one of the greatest creations of the 20th century.
those who shit on it are retards.
it has its problems. but ultimately it is an incredible source of free knowledge.

It's ok for getting a very general idea of complex things, which is whatI assume it was intended for.

Yes, the sun is in the sky and the water of wet. Now move on and stop spamming the same thread all the time.

Attached: 1548683804832.jpg (680x541, 54K)

>Anything even remotely sensitive, anything of geopolitical importance and a lot of other things will be heavily censored and controlled.
>t. They deleted my Kristan article reeee

I use it when I can't remember a well-defined mathematical definition for something that I should know or maybe learned in grad studies but forgot and I can't be bothered going through a small hill of textbooks to find it again.

wikipedia is untrustworthy since anyone can edit it. not saying the information is bad, but i would never use wikipedia as a source for anything.

In other words Wikipedia is perfect for reading and refreshing technical things that I already know. Learning anytging new there would be pointless.

Its barely just ok, political fagotry has permanently ruined any credibility it could have possessed. There's no entry that can be trusted because even things that shouldn't be affected by politics, are full of inaccuracy. Then on top of that is what seems to be twitter intellectuals and fanbois spreading there vast stupidity into every subject possible.
Its permafucked.

>anyone can edit
Yes maybe 10 years ago.

It was, read some of the shit that you need, if it has some PC influences in it be sure that it is shit.

>go to wikipedia
>click random article
>click edit
i sure seems to work. i could edit all kinds of faggotry, if i wanted

I am poor and I ain t goona make it big by donating to leftist.

Try it and tell me how long your shit stayed public.
[spoiler] It won't even get past validation [/spoiler]

you still can edit the page, archive it, and use it as an reference.

>are you brainlet?
>yes >yes
>no >no

Pretty much this.
It's also fine to get a quick overview of a subject. Using it as a serious, in-depth source is a big no-go though.

It's the place you go when you want some info about a field you don't know. Or if you wanna read pseudoscience. Or maybe confirm things you already know in your own field.

I'm too stupid to understand most of the science (math etc) articles :(

I remember when the problem with wikipedia used to be mostly weebs trying to reference anime shit on every article.

Now it's politics when did everything go so wrong

For certain topics, definitely.

edit it and help improve it asshole, and the same i could say to many other in this thread

wikipedia is as good as you want it to be