Posted on 10/20/2025 8:32:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Wikipedia is good for finding dates of birth, but anything else is suspect
Wikipedia needs a conservative and truthful change. Satan was supposed to be the father of lies.
It's not bad on non-politically-charged science and technology. But anything politically relevant is biased to the point of doubtful use.
I was an early contributor to Wikipedia. After a while I became very disillusioned and gave it up, and I wiped all personal information from my user page. It had become a liability.
I can understand that completely. I suspect Wikipedia could’ve been a good idea, but The left used it, like they use all things in that fashion.
Largely now The Tragedy of the Commons.
Excellent reference, Paladin2.
Google is worse. Since Obama, one cannot find basic information a search used to bring.
“Google is worse.”
Yep, no longer does one get directed to original documents.
Total deprecation.
Sad....
I expected. Better from wales
Dump all the search engines and just use Grok. Give it what you want to know and it will do a great job of finding it, distilling it, analyzing it, and giving you what you were looking for, not a list of useless links. The search engines as we know them will slowly die. Use search engines for only the simplest of queries, and a neutral AI engine for everything else.
I use it to get background information on old movies and actors. For the most part, there is little political content for that, and the format Wiki uses is more informative than IMBD, which would be the other major source for that type of content.
Wiki is a joke whenever it comes to politics. It’s like trying to get valid info from MSNBC.
Liberalpedia...
“Google is worse.”
I asked Google for the difference in weight between the 4-cylinder and six-cylinder Porsche 914 models. (Was it just the added weight of a passenger?).
The first answer found the six was lighter. (Obviously wrong).
I reversed the entry and got the right answer; BUT WORSE, Google invented text to justify the wrong answer!
Wikipedia is NOT a “fair, unbiased” source of information. Whoever said they were?
It’s as if the entirety of The Encyclopedia Brittanica (or Funk and Wagnals back in the day) were co-opted by Marxist-socialist true believers who refused to allow ANY outside editors’ links to fully documented, - i.e., factual - unbiased information which countered their position.
You know, it’s as if Wikipedia is entirely Marxist propaganda.
Well, no, it’s not, not really. It really REALLY is entirely Marxist propaganda run by Marxist historical revisionists and should be trusted less than US waste stream media Jowhorenalists.
I’m not sure if there is one person in America that is labeled “far left” by wikipedia. Can anyone find one? There are thousands labeled far right in the the opening sentence. MTG for one.
Very true-I am a movie buff, and I always use Wikipedia for that because as you accurately state, their format is cleaner.
I always wondered about IMBD, because hell, they should be the go-to. But they designed it very poorly. Every time I use it I think “Good gosh, what is wrong with these people?”
All I can figure is, the founder of it did it that way, and nobody else can change it.
Wikipedia is the government in microcosm. Little special interests have their fiefdoms in the government bureaucracy, little Wikipedia bureaucrats treat their little kingdoms as their personal property. They aren’t going to just let go, all the more so, since they are insecure, petty tyrants. There’s a similarity there to academia.
Philip Roth, though, probably shouldn’t be complaining. Was it because Wikipedia took his ex-wife’s side? For everything false that might have been put into his bio, there was probably a lot of true and damaging stuff that was left out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.