Coincidentally, today I was going to edit a wikipedia article to correct a factual error in it but there was a note as a comment which discouraged against preci

Coincidentally, today I was going to edit a wikipedia article to correct a factual error in it but there was a note as a comment which discouraged against precisely that. Looking at the talk page I saw a bunch of wikipedia wankery on the subject (basically amounting to: this is the way we do things at wikipedia, thems the rules!) with issues of "no original research" and so forth, completely ignoring the fundamental importance of correctness. In the end I left the page alone, it's not worth the hassle. And that's one of the major problems with wikipedia today. Back when wikipedia was relatively unimportant and the main goal was simply duplicating data from elsewhere a lot of the foundational decisions for the site were valid, today those decisions are increasingly dangerous. Worse, as the example of Aaron's research shows the folks who run Wikipedia are largely ignorant of these issues and don't think any change is necessary.