How reliable is wikipedia still?

how reliable is wikipedia still?
has it fallen to revisionist regressive left political interests?
how accurate is the information presented, and how does it vary from topic to topic?

Other urls found in this thread:

art.plusfeminism.org/edit-a-thons/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Actual science content is generally very good, although often poorly written. Everything else is trash

Most history and humanities shit is also a good starting point or as a reference to some stupid fact. Though current Internet """""""""issues """"""""" are like reading a tumbler post.

This. Physics sometimes gets cranks, but math is actually pretty good.

how about historical european arms and armor?

Science wise, it's pretty good, although for further reading you will have to resort to textbooks or other links. Unfortunately, some of the science pages are unnecessarily complex for beginners, but if you understand what you're reading, it's very reliable. Always check for citations though.

Everything else depends... most pages on other subjects outside of STEM like history etc are good and accurate too, but I wouldn't trust political pages, regardless of political camp you belong to (/pol/ in this case). Political pages are hit or miss for every side because there are many interests behind the control of certain information, or just butthurt behind certain facts (far left or alt-right for example). It's better to do your own research when it comes to politics.

I know the specifications for the Bf 109(G-6) are wrong, check out the empty weight in kg and then in lbs

To add to your post, Wikipedia mods definitely have a Left-wing bias so will leave questionable things up when they support Leftist interests whilst removing quality content that conflicts with it.

Like how they took down the cultural Marxism page and merged some of it under the "conspiracy theory" section in the Frankfurt School article. Yet they have a huge goddamn article on "White privilege", which is just a sociological meme.

There are two major issues I have with Wikipedia.

1) Wikipedia is only as good as it's sources. We on Veeky Forums especially know that journalists often hand wave details and give shitty or flat out incorrect explanations. In some cases the article is then reported on by other journalists who just quote or rephrase the misconceptions held in the original. Occasionally one such article will be used as a source in a Wikipedia article and it can only be noticed by an actual expert. After all, most of the general public thinks that if it was on a news site then it must be true and correct. Pop-sci books also often get used as sources (often containing dubious first hand accounts by researchers that have not undergone peer review). Unfortunately this problem is definitely not constrained to just Wikipedia and is part of a larger issue.

2) Occasionally Wikipedia articles in different languages will have completely different content and in some cases even conflicting information. This is especially the case whenever there was a controversy between different groups or countries (these cases tend to create a lot of biased sources on either side). In such cases I always make sure to check the pages for both languages (and if it's in a language I don't understand to run it through google translate at least). This issue is deeply troubling for many reasons. You often have two different communities separated by a language barrier where each community is convinced that they alone are correct and not even realizing that the group on the other side isn't seeing the same stuff. Worse still, Wikipedia has often talked about the possibility of translating articles from one language to another. While this sounds good on paper because we're spreading information it could potentially also be used to control another country's narrative. This could become far more toxic if the US were to go to war with another country.

Me again, just want to say that within the context of academic subjects like mathematics. Wikipedia is fairly reliable as the only people confident enough to edit said articles are people who actually know what they're talking about (not some douchebag who googled a news article to support their claim).