Sorry, I am not quite sure what the problem is? I think Wikipedia is great from my day to usage. Can you point me to specific examples where the output is bad due to this?
I would like to see the problem.
I would like to see the problem.
I assume OP has a particular set of issues that they are not in agreement with the majority of experts on.
What leads you to believe you can so easily spot a biased article? Everyone believes they're a neutral arbiter.
It means:
- presented as a fact, rather than as the opinion of a scholar/researcher/etc. (meaning Wikipedia says it is true without citing anyone else)
- ignoring a significant controversy or dissent
- describing uncertain information as certain
- perpetuating the myth that science is settled and can't be updated with new information
I'm deliberately avoiding giving examples because it seems logical to assume that I'd merely reflect my own culture war positions with respect to any such example and thereby generate more heat than light.
Overall though I still think wikipedia turns out pretty reasonably as a whole even given having seen a number of situations where I disagreed with the outcome.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/24/wikipedia...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/02/169470/computati...
To me, experts are people who have spent a lot of time studying something firsthand, have turned over their research in a transparent way, who submit their work to criticism by their peers and the public, and who have no hidden financial backing from a biased party.
Encyclopedias are, by definition, fairly superficial. You could also sit down and nitpick Britannica. The quality of writing is better because they actually have a professional staff, but they have to make all the same hard choices about what to include and objectivity.
Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg come to mind. Wikipedia might be an encyclopedia, but those are the libraries.
You will see the amount of information missing from the wiki page.(compare with Serrapeptidase entry on say drugs.com).
Then look at the Talk page of the entry. You'll see the editorial battle there with some "power editors" squashing any attempt to correct the page.
It showed me the type of politics and game that can happen behind wikipedia. I really dont care, I just click back and looked at the other better Google results. It's only kind of sad, given wikipedia"s origins/mission (im old enough to remember when wikipedia was created. It's one of the few remnants of the "old" web)