680
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
680 points (99.9% liked)
Privacy
2011 readers
591 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What makes Wikipedia unreliable is also what makes it useful, so they have to strike the balance somewhere. As you point out, it's broadly rejected as source reference itself, so I don't agree that Wikipedia is "controversial" as much as a known quantity.
The editing process is under constant review and is updated to address problems, while adhering to the design principles of the effort. It's not as if they are ignoring the concerns you share. In fact, they hire people explicitly to think about and address these issues.
That’s fine, I was simply responding to the poster calling me “out of touch with reality” for saying that Wikipedia has known issues and controversy surrounding it.
Not everyone thinks that Wikipedia isn’t a valid source, as the poster I replied to shows. That’s the main issue.