After 25 years, Wikipedia has proved that news doesn't need to look like news

Wikipedia as “news” and current events

• Commenters note the irony that Wikipedia’s policies say “not a newspaper,” while it runs “In the news” and a Current Events portal.
• Many see those current-events pages as a superior format: continuously updated syntheses rather than ephemeral “status update” articles.
• Some reject calling this “news” at all, preferring “recent events,” but still value Wikipedia’s role during big breaking stories as a clear, centralized summary.

Reliability, bias, and manipulation

• Strong disagreement over trustworthiness: some say Wikipedia is less biased and more reliable than partisan TV news; others argue it’s “hijacked” and reflects whoever can organize, spend money, or grind hardest.
• Examples of suspected agenda-pushing: paid PR edits (e.g., Qatar case), nationalist editing of Holocaust-in-Poland articles, religious/political pages (e.g., Constitution of Medina), and geopolitical topics like Uyghurs/Xinjiang.
• Supporters counter that edit histories and talk pages make bias visible and correctable, unlike opaque editorial desks; “weird bullshit” tends to recede once scrutinized.

COVID, medicine, and contentious expertise

• Debate over pages that label doctors as “misinformation spreaders.”
• One side: these people really did spread false claims during COVID; describing them as such is warranted.
• Other side: dissenters from “official narratives” were smeared, and edits on such topics are aggressively policed by entrenched editors.

“Single source of truth” and critical thinking

• Several worry that Wikipedia (and now LLMs) have become a de facto arbiter of truth, distorting human interaction into “whose source wins” rather than real understanding.
• Others argue sources and citations are good; the real problem is failing to question them or understand bias and incentives.
• Historical perspective: authority once came from priests/mayors; now from mainstream media, influencers, or “trusted sources.”

Governance, admins, and structural critiques

• Critics describe arbitrary editorial decisions, protected pages, and cliques of admins making change difficult, especially on politics, religion, and history.
• Some propose reforms: stronger accountability for admins, transparent arbitration, precedents for vague rules, independent appeals, and mechanisms to simplify bloated meta-rules.

Comparison with traditional media

• Mixed views on public broadcasters (BBC, PBS) vs. pluralistic commercial outlets.
• Some argue one “officially trusted” source is dangerous; better to have many obviously biased ones.
• Others say outlets like the BBC remain far more rigorous than highly partisan networks.

Usefulness and limitations

• Many still see Wikipedia as the best single repository of knowledge for most non-controversial topics.
• A common pattern: use it as an overview and source finder, but not as a deep learning resource (especially in math/technical topics) or as final authority on politically loaded issues.
• Some prefer subject experts, books, or Britannica for deeper understanding.

Alternatives, AI, and formats

• Skepticism toward “bias-free” competitors like Grokipedia, which appear heavily slanted and centrally controlled.
• Note that AI firms now pay for high-speed “enterprise” access to Wikipedia; training still possible via free dumps.
• Technical wishes for news: Wikipedia-style versioning, diffs, permanent links, and structured markup that news organizations largely lack.
• Tools and spin-offs like Weeklypedia and RSS workarounds are mentioned as interesting complements to Wikipedia’s evolving “news-like” role.