(07-06-2021, 03:18 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: I actually use to throw a $20 bill Wikipedia's way about once a year because I appreciate the quick reference knowledge they provide on science and technology stuff. Then I opened up one of their pages on something (I can't recall the subject - it might have been NASA related) and it was so full of irrelevant and out of context political content that it was shocking. Naturally it was pee-in-the-pants TDS rant material. It read like something a sky screamer would write, yet there it was on a Wikipedia page. Probably written by DragonFury.

I still use them for science and technology references, but it would feel dirty and dishonest to give them any more money. It's the same reason I stopped my subscription to Scientific American, long before things became as divided as they are now. It was obvious the editors, 10-12 years ago, were willing to bastardize a scientific platform to advance a social agenda.

I've never contributed monetarily, but I initially liked the concept of Wikipedia since they would cite sources for the facts that they present.  However, depending on the subject matter many of the sources supplied as "fact" are opinion pieces with almost all of them leaning to left-leaning and misleading (same thing) opinion pieces.

---