What makes Wikipedia unreliable is also what makes it useful, so they have to strike the balance somewhere. As you point out, it’s broadly rejected as source reference itself, so I don’t agree that Wikipedia is “controversial” as much as a known quantity.
The editing process is under constant review and is updated to address problems, while adhering to the design principles of the effort. It’s not as if they are ignoring the concerns you share. In fact, they hire people explicitly to think about and address these issues.
That’s fine, I was simply responding to the poster calling me “out of touch with reality” for saying that Wikipedia has known issues and controversy surrounding it.
Not everyone thinks that Wikipedia isn’t a valid source, as the poster I replied to shows. That’s the main issue.
What makes Wikipedia unreliable is also what makes it useful, so they have to strike the balance somewhere. As you point out, it’s broadly rejected as source reference itself, so I don’t agree that Wikipedia is “controversial” as much as a known quantity.
The editing process is under constant review and is updated to address problems, while adhering to the design principles of the effort. It’s not as if they are ignoring the concerns you share. In fact, they hire people explicitly to think about and address these issues.
That’s fine, I was simply responding to the poster calling me “out of touch with reality” for saying that Wikipedia has known issues and controversy surrounding it.
Not everyone thinks that Wikipedia isn’t a valid source, as the poster I replied to shows. That’s the main issue.