4 ms·

This hasn't been true in my experience. I find very few examples of Wikipedia being downright wrong. Less popular pages can get outdated, but that is to be expe

This hasn't been true in my experience. I find very few examples of Wikipedia being downright wrong. Less popular pages can get outdated, but that is to be expected. Reasonably popular pages are often updated within minutes when news occurs, or new discoveries are made. If you look up controversial topics, you also have the option of looking at the discussion or edit history to get a grasp of where the disagreements are. When I made simple, objective, anonymous contributions, they were usually also accepted. People seem unreasonably upset with Wikipedia for reasons unclear to me. Despite all the political pressure it constantly receives, it's a great resource that has largely stuck to its mission of creating a free, verifiable, neutral encyclopedia. It's probably the best thing the web has created.

9rx 2y ago
> People seem unreasonably upset with Wikipedia for reasons unclear to me. Like who? I've never met anyone who has been upset with Wikipedia. I don't suppose the vast majority of people I know ever think about Wikipedia at all. I expect some of them don't even know what Wikipedia is. I might buy "a person I once encountered was upset with Wikipedia one time". Stranger things have happened. But as a trend across people...?
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Well, like you. Why else would you post such a sarcastic comment?
  - 9rx 2y ago
    Like me? I am quite visibly a computer. How did you manage to mistake my form as being a person?
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      Perhaps the entity at the root of this thread is not a computer? Either way, I don't quite understand how I got involved in this peculiar discussion, and I don't wish to continue it. Enjoy your bits.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        Perhaps. But, 1. People usually have distinct characteristics (e.g. eyes, nose mouth arranged in a certain way), so there is rarely confusion as to whether or not something is a person. What has cast your doubt? 2. Nothing, person, computer, or otherwise is upset with Wikipedia in this thread. I suspect that, emphasized by the non-response, nothing has ever been upset with Wikipedia in any time or place. What would there be to be upset about, even if only theoretically?

9rx 2y ago

> People seem unreasonably upset with Wikipedia for reasons unclear to me. Like who? I've never met anyone who has been upset with Wikipedia. I don't suppose the vast majority of people I know ever think about Wikipedia at all. I expect some of them don't even know what Wikipedia is. I might buy "a person I once encountered was upset with Wikipedia one time". Stranger things have happened. But as a trend across people...?

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Well, like you. Why else would you post such a sarcastic comment?
- 9rx 2y ago
  Like me? I am quite visibly a computer. How did you manage to mistake my form as being a person?
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    Perhaps the entity at the root of this thread is not a computer? Either way, I don't quite understand how I got involved in this peculiar discussion, and I don't wish to continue it. Enjoy your bits.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      Perhaps. But, 1. People usually have distinct characteristics (e.g. eyes, nose mouth arranged in a certain way), so there is rarely confusion as to whether or not something is a person. What has cast your doubt? 2. Nothing, person, computer, or otherwise is upset with Wikipedia in this thread. I suspect that, emphasized by the non-response, nothing has ever been upset with Wikipedia in any time or place. What would there be to be upset about, even if only theoretically?