I've soured on Wikipedia. You can't make edits without turning Wikipedia internal politics into your full-time hobby because you run into people who have. That

I've soured on Wikipedia. You can't make edits without turning Wikipedia internal politics into your full-time hobby because you run into people who have. That doesn't mean their opinions are more or less correct, yet they count for more. Any political or politically controversial topic you basically get the US State Dept.-approved official/propaganda narrative on the topic with 0 room for other views. To actually get the full view of these topics that should be in the article, you instead have to refer to the dozens-of-pages-long Talk pages to see all the non-corporate-media viewpoints being squashed and silenced. These in turn aren't readily available in mobile format. I recently was researching a news outlet blacklisted as a source from Wikipedia, which is known for being very pro-Palestinian. When I googled the very first username for the vote on Wikipedia to ban them, it belonged to a pro-Israeli think tank writer in DC. How interesting it would be to unmask the rest of the votes. So my trust in Wikipedia on the issues where you need trust is basically 0.