I know you didn’t ask, but I will tell you that when I saw this post I didn’t interpret it as a criticism of Wikipedia, but of the article subject. I read “Wikipedia at it again” as a positive endorsement about telling the truth.
I agree with that, and I think that one comment below has it wrong. My comment wasn’t a defense as much as it was a neutral clarification for readers at home™. I try to offer additional context when Wikipedia stuff gets brought up on Lemmy, because 1) selfishly, I think demystifying it makes it more likely that new people try editing, and 2) with Wikipedia being a major anchor of the modern information ecosystem, it’s healthier for said ecosystem if people better understand what goes into it.
I know you didn’t ask, but I will tell you that when I saw this post I didn’t interpret it as a criticism of Wikipedia, but of the article subject. I read “Wikipedia at it again” as a positive endorsement about telling the truth.
Thats what I thought it was. Was it not intended as such?
I agree with that, and I think that one comment below has it wrong. My comment wasn’t a defense as much as it was a neutral clarification for readers at home™. I try to offer additional context when Wikipedia stuff gets brought up on Lemmy, because 1) selfishly, I think demystifying it makes it more likely that new people try editing, and 2) with Wikipedia being a major anchor of the modern information ecosystem, it’s healthier for said ecosystem if people better understand what goes into it.