Wikipedia is full of extraordinarily stupid shit, especially anything historical or political, and has an equally stupid corps of crank editors who will spend 12 hours a day making sure no one touches their garbage writing. Not to mention how many of their early admins were either paedos or literal cult members (their coverage of Prem Rawat was wild).
There's pages that are written using almost exclusively one author or source lol, and though they value 'academic consensus' they make it impossible to demonstrate its existence - because how can that possibly be done for some moron without an understanding of the topic? The acceptance of 'consensus' within pendulous fields that routinely contradict themselves and swing back and forth notwithstanding, there is no possible way to centrally present the consensus to someone who doesn't follow the related research, meaning the clique of fat retard editors who pass judgement on it will rely on the most superficial understanding of the fact that certain things were published; any evaluation of their validity, like seeing if it was ever cited, is beyond their scope, and they will never read the sources themselves.
This gets even worse in other languages; Russian wikipedia is a toxic wasteland. English wikipedia at least allows sources in other languages, but places more weight on English language ones; there's an obvious issue here if most of the research was conducted in another language.
Anyway pic related is one of my favorites, gets worse the more you look at it.
>>2176985It's never enough for these people.
It's funny, the world's been flipped on its head in the last decade. Everything the 2010s right criticized the 2010s left for doing is now something that the 2020s right is doing itself. Oh the humanity!