“Taken over” is a little strong. Anyone can edit a page, but you can see the edit history. That doesn’t mean wikipedia is compromised. It means you need to be media literate. If there’s too many bad faith edits, the article gets reverted and locked.
Go look at some of the most active wikipedia contributors, they are mostly hyper political nerds. Wikipedia is heavily reliant on the social consensus of it’s contributors. It’s not a far out idea that there could be a slant among them.
curation can still skew towards one side. you know this, everyone knows this. just saying wikipedia used to better before it was taken over by ideologues.
“Taken over” is a little strong. Anyone can edit a page, but you can see the edit history. That doesn’t mean wikipedia is compromised. It means you need to be media literate. If there’s too many bad faith edits, the article gets reverted and locked.
Go look at some of the most active wikipedia contributors, they are mostly hyper political nerds. Wikipedia is heavily reliant on the social consensus of it’s contributors. It’s not a far out idea that there could be a slant among them.
Just so you know, you can check any claim by going to the cited source. If there is no source, you’re free to ask for one or ignore.
That’s far better then other systems. It’s also an encyclopedia, not a news paper. You shouldn’t be using it for current events anyway.
curation can still skew towards one side. you know this, everyone knows this. just saying wikipedia used to better before it was taken over by ideologues.