In computing and computer science it is regularly appalling, even on basic topics.
The article on wait() et al., for example, is significantly wrong, some of which is called out on its talk page.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_(system_call)
There are similar errors in its article on MAC times.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MAC_times
Its article on pax, a standard Unix utility for a fairly long while, is very misleading too.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pax_(Unix)
Its article on CubeHash in 2013 did not include information from 2009.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubeHash#This_article_is_....
I've pointed out errors in its article on systemd, one of which was called out by one of the systemd authors.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723240462&oldid=72...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631112520&oldid=63...
The irony of this edit to the NFS article is that in fact the problems and limitation of NFS with respect to full Unix filesystem semantics were called out by its authors when they first wrote about it, and are the widespread view.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_File_Syst...
Wikipedia people actually tried to delete articles on "Is" functions, C++ placement syntax, and the Process Environment Block.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&diff...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Environme...
They in contrast kept an article about a purported computer science concept that was invented within Wikipedia based upon a vague phrase in a book that did not in fact describe the Wikipedia concept.
* http://jdebp.eu./FGA/legacy-encoding-has-no-definition.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
So did you help make it better?
I haven't touched these topics. But in my experience, nearly none of my edits remained, despite providing credible and neutral sources for whatever I added. Usually, there are long-term Wikipedia editors who have put plenty of pages on their watchlist, and treat the pages as their own personal property. Every tiny change is treated as if it were controversial, and must be fought over in the talk pages. Beginners to Wikilawyering and WikiBullying lose these fights. "Anyone can edit" has become a joke.
hehe yeah I've noticed that. They are the most boring arguments in the world, with those people, who with a life has time for that. Well, most pages aren't like that I think.
I was going to say that computing and computer science topics are free of such silliness, and that clearly you were editing a far more fraught subject area such as American current affairs; but:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&d...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&d...