←back to thread

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

(www.washingtonpost.com)
760 points coloneltcb | 2 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.431s | source
Show context
jmclnx ◴[25 Apr 25 23:08 UTC] No.43799332[source]▶
Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
replies(6): >>43799359 #>>43799397 #>>43799410 #>>43799551 #>>43799584 #>>43799659 #
myth_drannon[dead post] ◴[25 Apr 25 23:14 UTC] No.43799359[source]▶
[flagged]
Ar-Curunir ◴[25 Apr 25 23:17 UTC] No.43799377[source]▶
Absolute nonsense. Wikipedia is infinitely better than every source of “facts” out there.
replies(1): >>43799521 #
1. hagbard_c ◴[25 Apr 25 23:44 UTC] No.43799521[source]▶
No, Wikipedia is no better than any other site which allows user edits and in many ways reliably biased towards certain narratives - which narrative depends on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles should always be read in conjunction with the Talk and Edit history pages and even then it is necessary to find original sources for any claims made in Wikipedia articles.
replies(1): >>43802205 #
2. efilife ◴[26 Apr 25 09:48 UTC] No.43802205[source]▶
why is this downvoted? You call for verification of the claims wikipedia articles serve to us. Don't people agree we should verify info before accepting it?