Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article about the conspiracy theory has a disambiguating note pointing to "Marxist cultural analysis" as a more common term for the non-conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism". The remaining question is whether the conspiratorial use is significant/common enough that it deserves to be treated as the "default", and that's an editorial question that could be argued from either side. It's an uncomfortable situation…
Check the sources cited in this particular sentence: Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact and is not based on any actual intellectual tendency.[5][7]
Wikipedia is 20
71–80 of 391 posts
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#72I am surprised that the comments haven't mentioned the role of SEO in Wikipedia's growth and defensibility. Wikipedia's habit of deep interlinking helped it rank back in the early aughts when the SEO rules were rather simple. Add to that the subdomain-driven localization strategy and many other moves that were considered SEO best practices back in those years when the on-page factors used to matter. But that was just…
I think more than half the things you mentioned are only good SEO because search engines want to send people to websites they will like reading. I think when that is the case, we should be crediting people for making good websites, not good SEO.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).
I can barely believe I'm reading this comment! Wikipedia is my first and almost always only stop whenever I want to learn something related to math.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#74Ah good stuff - I love Wikipedia more than almost any other non-living thing that has been created in my lifetime. If you had told me the idea as a pitch 20 years ago I would have assumed you were capital I insane for thinking it would work. It was pretty fresh when I was in college and I remember my professors all being pretty explicit about not using it as a source. Thought I had figured out the world’s biggest lif…
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
100%. Wikipedia is an excellent recourse for anything non political, especially scientific and technical information.
It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#76Re: Wikipedia is 20
#77Take note: The interface hasn't changed much, a good thing.
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#78Its reputation is severely declining, especially on topics relating to current events, figures, or politics. It, however, remains excellent for technical knowledge.
Hard disagree. If anything I'd say its value and reputation for current events and politics are higher than ever. Please substantiate your unfair attack. Also: there's a typo in your comment. First word should be "Its", and not "It's".
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#79Plenty of subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia if you're paying attention
Subtle? Read the wiki page on hunter biden.
Are you also upset that they don't have a section on the Earth page saying the world might be flat?
Re: Wikipedia is 20
#80But I think of Wikipedia as having always existed.
Funny how memory works.
Also, I've lived longer with Wikipedia than without.
I guess I'm getting old.