batuhan Ah, yes, the infamous Nature article from 2005, that Britannica has long ago proven wrong. Also, a lot of things have happened in the last 20 years.
In the video I shared above I give a specific and undisputed example of Wikipedia making a very damaging political claim, giving 'citations', but when one looks into the citations you find that they don't actually contain the claims made in the page at all.
In the video description there are links to the wiki page and the citations they give for you to see for yourself.
This would never happen in other Encyclopaedias. (You seem obsessed with Britannica, but I just gave them as an example, as I repeatedly said, and ANY real professional encyclopaedia would do).
Not to mention the many times celebrities had said what is written about them in Wikipedia is complete fiction (YouTube channels made a career from 'fact or fiction' videos).
And when it comes to knowledge, a so called 'marginal' difference can be huge.
Wikipedia is one of the problems we have in this age of misinformation. It is the ultimate tool to spread nonsense around in the guise of a serious source.
Now, we may disagree about that last point, that's fine, but my point here is that I'm PAYING Kagi for a PREMIUM service. If I wanted nonsense pushed at me, I'd use Google. If I'm using Kagi, I'm choosing to abandon the freemium model for quality. And I don't think it is unreasonable for that quality to be present in the first source they provide, which should not be an amateurish source like Wikipedia, where even the 'citations' don't really 'cite' what they claim to in the page itself.
