Wikipedia Sucks!

From their user page:

But why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert.
That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
- Lore Sjöberg

Yes, people who spend decades studying a subject are scum, it's much better that "Randy in Boise" without a GED gets to decide what "sum of all human knowledge" means and entails.

Wikipedia is literally run by reactionary morons who internalised liberal democracy so deeply that they really don't see the problem in someone who studied the Peloponnesian war for 40 years being overruled by a redneck who read a story in some magazine.

In fact, according to the Wikipedia sources policy, information from the magazine article about sword-wielding skeletons trumps any primary research or academic journal paper that the Peloponnesian historian might cite. The historian needs to wait until the primary research is reported on by a newspaper or magazine.

The thing you're quoting says the exact opposite of what you think it does.

Don't look at me---the new guy must have been saving up resentments of the "WP Way" for years and discovered this forum. I asked him to try to put comments into older threads instead of creating a raft of new ones. Almost ANYTHING he could bring up has been discussed here before. (Do you realize this forum is almost 9 years old?)