Tons of cited links are utter bunk, just in ways that don’t blatantly violate Wikipedia’s guidelines. So many references to slop (in the pre-AI sense) books written by people with no real subject matter authority. Actually looking at the sources section makes it a lot more apparent how flawed Wikipedia is for anything that is not cut and dry.
More websites should archive their linked content. Great practice in general.
Are supposed to, and generally are, but there is a risk of somebody making unsourced changes and you seeing the article before it’s caught. Not a big deal for popular articles, but there are a lot of niche topics.
Especially considering the sources are always listed at the end of the article and most include internet archive links.
Tons of cited links are utter bunk, just in ways that don’t blatantly violate Wikipedia’s guidelines. So many references to slop (in the pre-AI sense) books written by people with no real subject matter authority. Actually looking at the sources section makes it a lot more apparent how flawed Wikipedia is for anything that is not cut and dry.
More websites should archive their linked content. Great practice in general.
Are supposed to, and generally are, but there is a risk of somebody making unsourced changes and you seeing the article before it’s caught. Not a big deal for popular articles, but there are a lot of niche topics.