3 ms·

Trusting a rando who claims to be the CEO of a company nobody heard of is worse, yes.

• SanjayMehta 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • svat 4mo ago
    No they are not, which is why Wikipedia doesn't rely on them. All information on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable via a reliable secondary source (books, newspapers, etc from publishers with a reputation), so anything written by any editor can, if unverifiable, be removed by any other editor, anonymous or not.
    • baranul 4mo ago
      Agree. That's what some people seem to not understand or overlook.