I feel like not enough people appreciate the simple fact that Wikipedia is essentially the most well-organized and complete collection of human knowledge in existence, and furthermore, it’s available to everyone who has access to the internet for free in dozens of languages.

There are tens of thousands of individuals collaborating every hour of every day to collect knowledge and share it with the rest of the world purely out of the desire to document and teach, and millions of people spending hours in the Wikipedia rabbit hole learning about subjects that they would have had no opportunity to without it.

Wikipedia is amazing. It’s the modern Library of Alexandria.

  • tDSpPd2C9MrT8n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also an ex-contributor; if you want to keep your respect for Wikipedia as a great source of well cited facts then do not look into the qualifications for being a cited source, once you dive into the citations of an article and see important facts having their citation be a random blog post on blogspot from 2003 it starts to feel a little like the Great and Powerful Oz.

      • Drewsteau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        As I generally read the science related pages, I have yet to find a bad citation, they are almost always from an accredited journal or other verified source. The Wikipedia chemistry section has saved me so much time and given me so much helpful info. The pages on genes and proteins are also usually amazing!

    • OsrsNeedsF2P
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It depends, the reliable sources guidelines do get followed to a tee for controversial/edit warred articles