I don't edit much any more, but although it's not perfect, it's retinue of backup resources (including links to Wayback for those which died) remains invaluable.
Over the past few years, ANOTHER new technology called Large Language Model, or LLM, has been invented. This new technology invents new sentences from whole cloth at the request of users. There are many LLM sites providing free responses to user queries. The ease with which users can get plausible answers to any question has led to complaints from the academic world that it is frequently used for cheating, supplanting the previously-favored free cheating technology known as Wikipedia.
Finally, there is an internet humor website known by the name "McSweeny's". As a humor website, sometimes it posts humorous articles written about current events.
This is one of those posts.
Wikipedia, a generation ago, was considered controversial. It is now more accepted as a legitimate encyclopedia and the criticisms appear quaint when compared to the post-truth atmosphere of our current media. The footnotes and the "citation needed" annotations are meant to mimic a Wikipedia article.
The donate button is a nice touch, from a time when web sites weren't afraid to put links to external sites. Wikipedia probably doesn't need your money, but it is, in my opinion, a solid organization providing an incredible resource to humanity. Though, as with all human enterprises, it has its flaws.
If you need context on why "Wikipedia" would write a smug letter taunting the world's experts and teachers on their predictions of it have aged, ... HN presumably has a limit on the text in a single post, so just read the entire intenet or something.
To be fair, it is easily 10x better as a source than any encyclopedia, even disregarding the scope and quantity of entries.
I loved Encyclopedia Britannica, and probably read the set in its entirety as a kid (nonsequentially), but it was like learning biology from Disney specials. Wikipedia is often updated and corrected by multiple experts, and importantly includes biblio endnotes. The latter alone sets it far above mere encyclopedias.
I remember an early advertisement for EB, masquerading as a research article that compared EB and WP. They found that while WP contained a bit more articles, EB was a bit more accurate (in their totally unbiased sampling). They did not mention that WP was growing exponentially at the time, while EB was not, nor did they mention that WP was continuously updated with corrections, while EB was effectively never ever updated (users bought a static copy).
I would get in trouble for "talking back" when I pointed out that anyone can make a website or write a book, too.
Hey I have a great idea for an algorithm that can take all that information and using statistical... No wait nevermind.
What a lot of folks miss is that traditional encyclopedias ensured correctness by employing experts in various fields. Wikipedia often cites those same experts via academic papers, etc. They just don't pay those SME's money directly.
If anything, I feel that Wikipedia often has less bias as the financial motives aren't there to just publish something for the sake of a paycheck.
Since we defunded education in my area, my wife left teaching behind. She says the LLMs will let students ask whatever questions they want, but they make poor educators.
I'll never forget EB's entry on "baby". It started with a lengthy paragraph that made a human baby sound like a horrifying, antisocial, psychotic parasite.
Yes, you feel obligated to reply with a joke about how accurate that is. Not the point.
The point is: the author was clearly a man, who didn't raise his own children, and it was unvetted by others.
You still shouldn't cite it, because it's not a primary source. That's the same with any encyclopedia.
The real key for rigorous use was to look at what was cited, not quote directly from wikipedia.