Wikipedia, for a few high-profile current events each week, serves a function similar to the one proposed for sourcedfact; and it regularly results in deeper + more contextualized coverage than even the best outlets. However, WP's commitment to being a tertiary source means that _some_ secondary source has to properly interpret the primary sources, before that interpretation can be included.

Wikipedia has flaws,too. 1. Your account need to have good history or social repo for your edits to be seriously considered by Wikipedia admins. 2. Admin can have their own set of bias and can decide to ignore edits.

Remember Wikipedia is a centralized and under control of single entity, fact that they rely on donation doesn't change anything.

Just because something has flaws doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to do it.

There wasn't anything said about Wikipedia being a bad idea, but rather that it shouldn't be your sole source for fact-checking. I've learned that people only trust Wikipedia to the point at which it confirms their biases.

Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is generally pretty darn accurate. Everybody always talks about funny vandalism stories, but generally it's pretty good. The issue of course is that there's parts of it that definitely aren't correct.

This makes it easy to say "Well if it's accurate 99% of the time then it must confirm what I thought!".

I have found that Wikipedia is pretty great, with the sole exception for anything that is remotely political. I would look elsewhere for such content.

The flow of the conversation was:

- OP made an open platform

- Someone said it could be a good idea because Wikipedia

- Someone else said that Wikipedia has flaws

Hence my comment.