It is a Wikipedia article on a topic with clear "culture war" significance. The topic is not an objective individual person, event, place etc., but a narrative about events unfolding over a considerable time span, which concerns itself with a subset of the population and their interaction with technology and thus society.
Yes, of course it's entirely wrong. Wikipedia cannot be trusted for this sort of thing. It is a tertiary source by design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_terti...), which entails that the most obsessed editors can cherry-pick what they like from already biased secondary sources (the ones considered "reliable"; the reputations of which may not be tarnished by "original research" or by conclusive proof coming from outside the list).
It is a Wikipedia article on a topic with clear "culture war" significance. The topic is not an objective individual person, event, place etc., but a narrative about events unfolding over a considerable time span, which concerns itself with a subset of the population and their interaction with technology and thus society.
Yes, of course it's entirely wrong. Wikipedia cannot be trusted for this sort of thing. It is a tertiary source by design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_terti...), which entails that the most obsessed editors can cherry-pick what they like from already biased secondary sources (the ones considered "reliable"; the reputations of which may not be tarnished by "original research" or by conclusive proof coming from outside the list).