I remember when Wikipedia first became popular, there were a lot of warnings about how you couldn't trust the information because "anyone could edit it". I feel like, at least to my level of understanding whatever I'm reading about, it's been sufficient and I've never identified something wrong/inaccurate (except for perhaps recent news or recently debated political topics). This is the first time that I've seen that downside of Wikipedia, as I use it for understanding things like this and never would've known that the diagram I was learning from was wrong. Thanks for commenting this, it's good to know
The specific article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_graphics_.... I can understand the "multiple issues" section here, this seems super-technical in a certain way in comparison to what I usually see on Wikipedia (although wk does get very technical on very specific isolated things in e.g. math, usually non-theory tech pages are a summary), but I still found it motivating to dig into Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if it was removed.
I love wikipedia and I read to procrastinate by reading the articles for everything I am interested in so I have found quite a lot of factually incorrect information or statements of fact which are really philosophical opinions. However usually these problems coexist with a certain change in writing style (loss of formatting, grammatical errors, random capitalizations, change of tone, etc.). I find I haven't found many problems with content written in the usual "wikipedia" style, so I assume the hardcore wk editors who enforce this style care a lot about factual accuracy. However I don't read enough outside of wikipedia so I wouldn't know if everything is correct...
(actually now that I think about, maybe I am more likely to agree with things in the wikipedia style. But I think the style errors and factual errors are at least a bit correlated.)
