Could you be more specific? For almost all things Wikipedia has reasonably up to date information.
replies(1):
I think you're referring to the Wikimedia governance change vote (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41049562), not acceptance of content:
"How the Regime Captured Wikipedia" (piratewires.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41167891
... or more recently, content written by/assisted by AI.
Or else what?
I don't know what they're expecting others to use this data for, but if it's the same old same old LLM training data scraping, then you've got a perfectly good repository of syntactically correct, semantically coherent strings of characters and words in whatever languages Wikipedia supports. That is entirely reliable data. Whether or not it's also factually accurate doesn't matter. Language modeling doesn't require factual accuracy. That comes from some later training step if you care about that.
If you're trying to use it as a repository not of language examples but of facts, then recognize the limitations. Wikipedia itself performs no verification, no fact checking, and by design does not assure you that its content is factually accurate. Instead, it assures you that all claims of fact come along with citations of sources that meet some extremely lightweight definition of authority. Thus statements of the form "A claims X" should be viewed as statements that Wikipedia is saying are true. However, statements simply of the form "X" found on Wikipedia are not statements that Wikipedia is claiming are true.
It's up to the consumer of Wikipedia data to recognize this and do what they can with it.
If you look up controversial topics, you also have the option of looking at the discussion or edit history to get a grasp of where the disagreements are.
When I made simple, objective, anonymous contributions, they were usually also accepted.
People seem unreasonably upset with Wikipedia for reasons unclear to me. Despite all the political pressure it constantly receives, it's a great resource that has largely stuck to its mission of creating a free, verifiable, neutral encyclopedia. It's probably the best thing the web has created.
Like who? I've never met anyone who has been upset with Wikipedia. I don't suppose the vast majority of people I know ever think about Wikipedia at all. I expect some of them don't even know what Wikipedia is.
I might buy "a person I once encountered was upset with Wikipedia one time". Stranger things have happened. But as a trend across people...?
1. People usually have distinct characteristics (e.g. eyes, nose mouth arranged in a certain way), so there is rarely confusion as to whether or not something is a person. What has cast your doubt?
2. Nothing, person, computer, or otherwise is upset with Wikipedia in this thread. I suspect that, emphasized by the non-response, nothing has ever been upset with Wikipedia in any time or place. What would there be to be upset about, even if only theoretically?