Wikipedia is an odd one. If you're looking for perhaps the results of the recent Japanese F1 race, then wikipedia is a great source. If you're looking for a hi

Wikipedia is an odd one. If you're looking for perhaps the results of the recent Japanese F1 race, then wikipedia is a great source. If you're looking for a high level understanding of some subjects then wiki will be a great source. But soon as you dive into intermediate expertise requirements and wikipedia falls apart. Most everyone knows how science study news is often misrepresented, but wikipedia often takes these as complete truth and represents it as the fact. Go into any subject where even the experts dont really know and wikipedia will speak as if it's settled science. Then we come to subjects where there isn't some sort of correct answer. Politics is terribad on wikipedia. Political subjects are often misrepresented as 'science' and not politics. Accepted sources have been curated to only allow 1 viewpoint. There's clear abuse and misrepresentations on political subjects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... Look at those 2050 and 2100 predictions which look very bad. But what is IPCC AR5 RCP8.5? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#RCP_8.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... >Since AR5 this has been thought to be very unlikely, but still possible as feedbacks are not well understood. Why would they choose the worse case scenario as if it's that predicted future?