@binford2k @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg

This guy is a crank and there's little point debating him unless you're in for the long haul. The reason he says this is because Wikipedia has articles such as the one on 0.999... which he erroneously believes to simply be false. The other two topics he is consistently wrong about are order of operations and set theory. The only sources he accepts are high school textbooks, but even those he will dismiss if they disagree with him, or torture the language so thoroughly as to render discussion impossible.

Because he's so wrong about basic facts, he will never think Wikipedia is accurate based on statistics because to him it's as if it said the sky were green.

I encourage you all to read at least a little bit of what he says to confirm this, because I think he survives here by people just skipping over his ravings, yet he pollutes the #maths hashtags with relentless self-promotion, each time wasting someone else's time, each time typically getting no push back. He'll never admit he was wrong, but if enough people tell him, he might be wrong more quietly.

Wikipedia's biggest problem is lack of simple context. This is true on mathematical articles but worse elsewhere.