The larger issue for me as a former heavy Wikipedia user is the poor quality of web citations. I cannot use it as a research aid if the citations go nowhere and

The larger issue for me as a former heavy Wikipedia user is the poor quality of web citations. I cannot use it as a research aid if the citations go nowhere and when they go somewhere it’s to a useless source which has no citations or citations that go nowhere. Free resources also tend to be valueless. Archive.org is a far better free resource because it consistently provides access to top tier sources from real libraries. Wikipedia has an unusable gibberish article on every topic if you want to be misinformed about it. Even on popular historical topics you are generally getting thinly sourced fan fiction with inaccuracies sprinkled in. A Wikipedia user is just reading misinformation to gain the illusion of knowledge. The less said about the sewage in the contemporary topic pages the better, although Sanger does a good job describing the issue, anyone who trusted those pages in the first place has brain damage, so it’s not like something glorious or valuable has been wrecked there. It started off bad and became worse.