Well I think we'd be better off without them
So their political articles have a bent to them
Where else are you going to find free and simple explanations of complex topics like quantum physics and string theory
Long essays about history of various ancient civilizations and religions
Well they don't generate that content, they only aggregate it
Scholarly papers are expensive
Wikipedia is free
Where do you think they get their info?
If you want quantum physics read a damn book
They have a list of sources at the bottom of each page
History, read a damn book
It costs me money to buy all those books
You don’t need wiki
Library
Free your mind
Read a book
Books give more information than a webpage
But not at the same speed or reading level
And not instantly
If I need a grasp on a concept quickly, Wikipedia is at my fingertips
The library isn’t
It depends what you are looking to research
Books always have more detail
Name a topic
Tell me how fast you can get a book on it
I’ll tell you how fast I can find an article on it
You can find an article faster
Take a look, it's in a book
But with less information
Then if I need more, I can buy the book or have it shipped
I mean honestly I'm surprised we're still defending it so hard lol
But if I really quickly want to know who the 25th president of the United States is, I can find him and a short biography instantly
Literally any topic there's hundreds of pages of results today
Of varying quality and accessibility
and we contend, that *maybe* it's better to actually spend the time reading
rather than be told WHAT you need to know about something
I don’t get what point you’re making, we don’t disagree
But if you wish to be fed whatever "short cut" version of something some guy deems "worthy" or the most important, that's fine too
I just think it's not exactly the best way
Look if I want to know a lot about a topic, I’m going to research it deeply, but if I need to know a quick rundown of a topic, I’m not going to go to those lengths
