Discernment

90%+ of topics are fine for researching on wikipedia - animals, chemistry, hockey, foods, computers, coffee, yada yada yada, the list is endless

[It's amusing and amazing how many people will tout scientific journals as credible data (pre-Wuhan flu), when they almost never get updated or corrected and are notoriously full of errors; meanwhile wikipedia is updated constantly and rigorously in real time]

If a topic has ANY political or social component to it, even remotely or tangentially, then no. Just like the Straight Dope website, it's going to be insane, unabashed left-wing propaganda every time. At least it's predictable LOL

Discernment

90%+ of topics are fine for researching on wikipedia - animals, chemistry, hockey, foods, computers, coffee, yada yada yada, the list is endless

[It's amusing and amazing how many people will tout scientific journals as credible data (pre-Wuhan flu), when they almost never get updated or corrected and are notoriously full of errors; meanwhile wikipedia is updated constantly and rigorously in real time]

If a topic has ANY political or social component to it, even remotely or tangentially, then no. It's going to be insane, unabashed left-wing propaganda every time. At least it's predictable LOL

Discernment

90%+ of topics are fine for researching on wikipedia - animals, chemistry, hockey, foods, computers, coffee, yada yada yada, the list is endless

If a topic has ANY political or social component to it, even remotely or tangentially, then no. It's going to be insane, unabashed left-wing propaganda every time. At least it's predictable LOL