Over time wikipedia trends towards inequality of participation. This includes access by scholars and researchers. [1] It also shows (seemingly regularly) polit

Over time wikipedia trends towards inequality of participation. This includes access by scholars and researchers. [1] It also shows (seemingly regularly) political and religious bias worldwide. [2] Wikipedia also seems to regularly be a platform of misinformation. Mass purging of sources. And delisting of accurate information. [3] [4] [5] (sources taken at random, too many to list.) Wikipedia will always have problems, IMO. It's in it's nature. When I was a kid I would read encyclopedias like the other kids would read comics. It's clear to me that it's best to use Wikipedia as a conduit to sources, not as direct reference to fact. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26871092/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26871092/ [2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-culture-war https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-culture-war [3] https://prn.fm/wikipedia-misinformation-prejudice-case-examples-drs-deepak-chopra-gary-null/ https://prn.fm/wikipedia-misinformation-prejudice-case-examp... [4] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikiped... [5] https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia_prejudice_and_KAL_007 https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia_prejudice_and_KAL_00...