I'll just say the obvious:

Wikipedia admins get it wrong more often than they get it right, and the general process for Wikipedia is obtuse, ignorant, and generally backward, with most of the favor given towards "people with old accounts" as opposed to actual knowledge.

It's beyond simple to get new editors banned for simply creating edits others don't like, no matter what the veracity is.

The only reason it's good for things like science is that it's generally hard for the kind of lowIQ populace their older accounts and admins have to argue about definitive numbers. But I am sure if they could they'd say things like "Hydrogen doesn't actually always have 1 electron", and so on.

▲

bawolff 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> edits others don't like, no matter what the veracity is.

Wikipedia bans people for their behaviour, not for being right or wrong. So you are correct that veracity is irrelavent.

▲

loeg 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you saying that lying isn't considered poor behavior by Wikipedia or what? I don't believe that.

	▲	bawolff 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Depends on how you define "lying". Misrepresenting what another contributor said? yeah you can be blocked. Disagreeing on what should be in an article? That won't get you blocked. Getting into an edit war about it might. Being "right" is not a valid defense for edit warring. In general, its not the place for admins to decide what is "true". Its their job to make sure people are behaving in accordance to the rules.