Update

wikipedia.md

@@ -18,9 +18,9 @@ There exist [forks](fork.md) and alternatives to Wikipedia. Simple English Wikip
 
 Let's note a few positive and negative points about Wikipedia, as of 2022. Some good things are:
 
-- Despite its flaws Wikipedia is still a **highly free, relatively high quality noncommercial source of knowledge for everyone**, without ads and [bullshit](bs.md). It is tremendously helpful, Wikipedia may e.g. be printed out or saved in an offline version and used in the third world as a completely free educational resource (see [Kiwix](kiwix.md)).
+- Despite its flaws Wikipedia is still a **highly free, relatively high quality noncommercial source of knowledge for everyone**, without ads and [bullshit](bs.md). It is quite helpful, Wikipedia may e.g. be printed out or saved in an offline version and used in the third world as a completely free educational resource (see [Kiwix](kiwix.md)).
 - Wikipedia **helped prove the point of [free culture](free_culture.md)** and showed that collaboration of volunteers can far surpass the best efforts of corporations.
-- Wikipedia's **website is pretty nice** (at least as of 2022), kind of minimalist, lightweight and **works without [Javascript](javascript.md)**. { Indeed as of 2023 they fucked it up :D It is still not as bad as other sites but it's shit now. ~drummyfish }
+- Wikipedia's **website is (/used to be) pretty nice** (at least as of 2022), kind of minimalist, lightweight and **works without [Javascript](javascript.md)**. { Indeed as of 2023 they fucked it up :D It is still not as bad as other sites but it's shit now. ~drummyfish }
 - Wikipedia is very **friendly to computer analysis**, it provides all its data publicly, in simple and open formats, and doesn't implement any [DRM](drm.md). This allows to make a lot of research, in depth searching, collection of statistics etc.
 - Wikipedia **drives the sister projects**, some of which are extremely useful, e.g. Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata or [MediaWiki](mediawiki.md).
 - Even if politically biased, **Wikipedia may serve as a basis for [forks](fork.md) that fix the political bias** ([Metapedia](metapedia.md), [InfoGalactic](infogalactic.md), ...).
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ And the bad things are (see also this site: http://digdeeper.club/articles/wikip
 - Wikipedia is **intentionally deceptive** -- it supports its claims by "citations" ("race is a social construct"^1234567891011121314151617181920) to make things look as objective facts, but the citations are firstly cherry picked (there is a list of banned sources), self-made (articles of Wikipedians themselves) and secondly the sources often don't even support the claim, they're literally there just for "good look". Not only do they practice censorship, they claim they do NOT practice censorship and then write article on censorship so as to define censorship in their own convenient way :) Furthermore their articles intentionally omit points of view of their political opponents.
 - Wikipedia often suffers from writing inconsistency, bad structure of text and **poor writing** in general. In a long article you sometimes find repeating paragraphs, sometimes a lot of stress is put on one thing while mentioning more important things only briefly, the level of explanation expertness fluctuates etc. This is because in many articles most people make small contributions without reading the whole article and without having any visions of the whole. And of course there are many contributors without any writing skills.
 - Wikipedia is **too popular** which has the negative side effect of becoming a **political battlefield**. This is one of the reasons why there has to be a lot of **bureaucracy**, including things such as **locking of articles** and the inability to edit everything. Even if an article can technically be edited by anyone, there are many times people watching and reverting changes on specific articles. So Wikipedia can't fully proclaim it can be "edited by anyone".
-- Wikipedia is **hard to read**. The articles go to great depth and mostly even simple topics are explained with a great deal of highly technical terms so that they can't be well understood by people outside the specific field, even if the topic could be explained simply (Simple English Wikipedia tries to fix this a little bit at least). Editors try to include as much information as possible which too often makes the main point of a topic drown in the blablabla. Wikipedia's style is also very formal and "not [fun](fun.md)" to read, which isn't bad in itself but it just is boring to read. Some alternative encyclopedias such as [Citizendium](citizendium.md) try to offer a more friendly reading style.
+- Wikipedia is **hard to read**. The articles go to great depth and mostly even simple topics are explained with a great deal of highly technical terms so that they can't be well understood by people outside the specific field, even if the topic could be explained simply (Simple English Wikipedia tries to fix this a little bit at least). Editors try to include as much information as possible which too often makes the main point of a topic drown in the blablabla. Wikipedia's style is also very formal and "not [fun](fun.md)" to read, which isn't bad in itself but it just is boring to read. Some alternative encyclopedias such as [Citizendium](citizendium.md) try to offer a more friendly reading style. Back in the day Wikipedia used to be written pretty well, check it out e.g. at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org.
 - Wikipedia is **not [public domain](public_domain.md)**. It is licensed under [CC-BY-SA](cc_by_sa.md) which is a [free](free_culture.md) license, but has a few burdening conditions. We belive knowledge shouldn't be owned or burdened by any conditions.
 - Even though there are no ads, there regularly appears **political propaganda**, main page just **hard pushes [feminist](feminism.md) shit** as featured images and articles, there appear popups for LGBT/feminist activism, and of course all articles are littered with [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) propaganda etc.
 - **Many articles are bought**, there exist companies that offer editing and maintaining certain articles in a way the client desires and of course corporations and politicians take this opportunity -- of course Wikipedia somewhat tries to prevent it but no prevention ever works 100%, so a lot of information on Wikipedia is either highly misleading, untrue, censored or downright fabricated.
@@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ There are many interesting and entertaining pages and articles on Wikipedia, som
 
 Due to mass censorship and brainwashing going on at Wikipedia it is important to look for alternatives that are important especially when researching anything connected to politics. This is a comparison of Wikipedia and some of its alternatives, as of 2023:
 
+{ See also old Wikipedia at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race. ~drummyfish }
+
 | encyclopedia                                                                                  | license                  | comment                                                                                               |
 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 |[Wikipedia](wikipedia.md)                                                                      | CC BY-SA                 | biggest, mainstream, **EXTREME CENSORSHIP AND PROPAGANDA**                                            |