Thank you for the clarification. This phrasing of yours:
While that is idealy true, the reality of maintaining an ecyclopedia is not always so black and white.
Is almost identical in nature to every bad faith argument used in the last two decades to dismantle public infrastructure in America.
Namely, you say Wikipedia’s goal of factual clarity is an ideal that doesn’t exist, and then go on to amplify a small problem (factual disagreement) as the reason it’s “not always so black and white.”
While your point is about encyclopedias in general, that seems buried by your choice of how to phrase that point.
No offense intended by me pointing this out. As you did absolutely clarify at the end of your statement that people should still use Wikipedia.
It’s just that the phrasing you used is almost identical to MAGA and how they talk about Wikipedia being woke. I can go on Twitter right now and find several bots talking about how Wikipedia isn’t an ideal source of information using the same language and argument you just did.
I appreciate the clarity you provided on what kind of decisions the editors of Wikipedia have to make, but I feel there’s likely a better way to phrase it that makes Wikipedia seem stronger rather than weaker because of it.
Thank you for the clarification. This phrasing of yours:
Is almost identical in nature to every bad faith argument used in the last two decades to dismantle public infrastructure in America.
Namely, you say Wikipedia’s goal of factual clarity is an ideal that doesn’t exist, and then go on to amplify a small problem (factual disagreement) as the reason it’s “not always so black and white.”
While your point is about encyclopedias in general, that seems buried by your choice of how to phrase that point.
No offense intended by me pointing this out. As you did absolutely clarify at the end of your statement that people should still use Wikipedia.
It’s just that the phrasing you used is almost identical to MAGA and how they talk about Wikipedia being woke. I can go on Twitter right now and find several bots talking about how Wikipedia isn’t an ideal source of information using the same language and argument you just did.
I appreciate the clarity you provided on what kind of decisions the editors of Wikipedia have to make, but I feel there’s likely a better way to phrase it that makes Wikipedia seem stronger rather than weaker because of it.