zlacker

>>nickpa+(OP)
The advantage of a community supported encyclopedia should be a reasonable degree of impartiality, openness and academic freedom. Wikipedia has departed a good distance from this ideal and should support itself as other media does... through advertising or subscriptions. The case is best found in the OP link comments, but here's one I found that well summarizes:

"You do have to filter out some stuff unfortunately – but even academia, scientists and historians are now confessing that they are tailoring their output to ‘fit in’ with wokeness and sensitivities."

>>howmay+Xa
A random comment with no sources about unnamed scientists who tailor their work to be featured in Wikipedia of all places?

I think the comment that best describes it is further down, on the guy who cannot fathom why New York Post (a tabloid) is not allowed as a source but NPR (the most trusted news source in america according to several surveys) is.

When you start off from not separating tabloids from journalism well then yeah you can call out Wikipedia for being "woke".