BeepAt 25, Wikipedia faces a double threat: the rise of AI and the decline of local media— Human visitors declined in 2025, while AI crawlers are on the rise
brucethemoose“Dismissing Wikipedia” is my political litmus test.
To be clear, it’s never been a reliable source; we learned that in middle school. You take everything written on it with a grain of salt.
…But it’s still an oasis in a desert.
When some of my family started questioning its utility because of its “liberal bias,” like post-grad-educated family saying this as Fox News blares in the background, I knew things had gotten bad.
I haven’t seen any extreme left question it IRL, but I’m afraid that’s coming too, with how tankies a some terminally online bits of Reddit are skeptical of it.
iktTo be clear, it’s never been a reliable source; we learned that in middle school. You take everything written on it with a grain of salt.
My understanding is if you’re not sure use the little numbers next to the quotes that you’re not sure about
But the vast majority of people seem to think the little numbers are just for show or something
This is what frustrates me. Wikipedia is one of the last places where sources are cited. I understand that sometimes the sources are not that great, but at least the claim comes with a source to verify. That’s a far cry from the nonsense spewed on say facebook.
Or Lemmy.
Information hygiene in the news subs is terrible, at least here on .world.