Wikipedia itself knows how much shit it's in. Every ongoing conflict and culture-war issue is a "contentious topic", which is Wikipedia code for "editors are at each others' throats"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#L...

They have a giant pile of editors banned from topics until they can play nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions...

But you do give a great tip: at minimum, check the talk page. If it's longer than the article itself, run away.

Some articles are so far gone, even the talk page is locked down like Fort Knox. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide

That page even has an FAQ!

> Q1: Why does this article state that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC have issued a final judgment?

> A1: A September 2025 request for comment (RfC) decided to state, in Wikipedia's own voice, that it is a genocide. The current lead is the result of later discussion on the specific wording.

this is so crazy. How does this accord with wikipedia's NOR & NPV stances?

This is a case of "if you abandon your convictions when it's inconvenient, you never really had convictions in the first place."

This whole affair should get much more attention. If one topic on Wikipedia can be so manipulated, any topic on Wikipedia can, and it's no longer a reliable source of knowledge.

I hope The Wikimedia Foundation can get its act together, and I admire the courage of Jimmy Wales for speaking up about this, but I've also stopped donating. I want no part of this.

I also have stopped donating. I replied to a WM Foundation email explaining why and they said they don't have editorial control over wikipedia, i.e. their hands are tied. Well OK, but I'm not giving money to fund the promulgation of Jew hatred and blood libel. Sad state of affairs! I've given for years.

I would say it absolutely violates the NPOV policy, and it's worth noting that both Wikipedia founders share this view [1] [2]. It's the only thing they've agreed on in many years.

Ultimately it's just a numbers game - Wikipedia almost always follows consensus, even when the consensus is to (effectively, without admission) throw neutrality or other rules out the window.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#...

Do you have suggestion of better repository of knowledge gathering, which achieve better level of neutrality than Wikipedia on every matter it covers, or throw right into your face that the article doesn’t meet consensual neutral POV?