Yes agreed, for example, there was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion.

Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting. It was the only source I could find easily for showing which country got starlink when.

A huge list of prose is still on the page (not marketing?) showing the updates in a very hard to read and not comprehensive way. Something is really quite wrong over there.

And the worst is the cycle:

1. There is incorrect information on wikipedia.

2. Legacy news publishes an article, using wikipedia as source (of course).

3. Now the incorrect information is essentially canonized

In that specific case, you could add those data to Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19867977#P2541

> There was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion. [...] Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting.

...I mean, yeah, that doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic. "Marketing" might be a bit strong but that doesn't mean it belongs in a general encyclopedia.

Huh, ironically, the opposite happened with Tesla, when numerous editors warred to include a model on the list of "Fastest Production Vehicles", even though the model hadn't been released, based on a press release from Tesla (and even that said it was a simulated, expected number).

It got to the point where there was a column for "verified" numbers, others, and then "Manufacturer projected" numbers.

It’s a shame :( There’s a lot of blatantly incorrect information on wikipedia, and i’ve had multiple wikipedia edits reverted due to ’bad sources’