Search results

I would view that as the biggest issue, actually. I've seen a lot of cases of people making bullshit claims to rile up thier own side, counting on the fact that people who agree with then won't fact check what they're saying.

Wikipedia being under the control of an ideology would probably improve it, since that would mean an effort to keep things up to date and maintain focus and consistent tone across the site.

Probably, once something gets big enough inertia will keep it running for a while, and while the article on any topic of political interest is going to be a mess, more normal topics should typically be saner. I think that would be 4, with the previous 4 becoming 5.

In general, wikipedia's problem is that it's list of priorities is: 1. Adhere to wikipedia's byzantine rules for notability, verification, BLP, etc, etc, etc. 2. Handle all disputes regarding the above via wikipedia's equally byzantine dispute resolution procedures, most of which run the gamut...