The Constitution, Right to Free Speech! This is America!

Here is the retaliation to sway future viewers with the "are you ok" Me I'm perfectly fine, don't know about you though, seem to be getting under your skin a bit. If you don't have anything to do with the game and you didn't put any time into making the game, why are you so offended?

This is America's house. Wherever you are and want your company to be, that's whose house you are in. He might also be a bot, be aware that AI exist and is in action everyday.

Well no, that wasn't entirely correct. Riot Games itself is american, but they have an european daughter which is based in Dublin. This is the one running EU, just like Garena, except this one is 100% owned by Riot.

I remembered it's from Dublin from the TOS I read, but obviously the EU company would handle legal stuff for me, an EUW player.

Huh... was unaware of the fact that they're an Irish Ltd. Wasn't even particularly easy to find info on that. I'd still argue it makes only limited (no pun intended) sense to call them European, though, when their official headquarter is nevertheless in LA.

Sorry but us robots don't take lunch breaks as we are unable to eat. Beep boop

Hi, prior (and still occasional) Wikipedia contributor here.

This is parroted a lot, but in fact, any professor that looks into it will tend to allow Wikipedia. Hell, I've even had professors use and cite Wikipedia during class.

People think that Wikipedia is edited very infrequently. The "recent changes" list is public - there are hundreds, if not thousands of changes per minute. Many of these are going to be minor, but of those that aren't, many are "reverting" vandalism. There are built in tools for editors to undo vandalism - the simplest one being the undo button which is available to all - logged in or not. More established editors can apply to the administrators for the use of special programs that monitor the entirety of Wikipedia - no matter how small, niche, or "dead" the page may be - and presents the "diff" (the old and new versions with highlighted differences), then allows the editor to revert the change automatically if it is illegitimate. These programs enable the very rapid reversion of vandalism, and there are more tools even beyond these such as limiting the page edits to non-new users.

In fact, the First Amendment page is "semi-protected" - meaning that only a logged in user with at least 10 edits and a certain "tenure" (of a few days) can edit the article. You can see this by looking at the top right of the desktop page, where there is a grey lock, as well as that it says "view source" instead of "edit".

So, TLDR - sure, it may not be a recognized source in your experience, but I've read multiple scientific articles that do use it as a source - using specific versions of the page that don't contain vandalism. And even still, vandalism isn't all that common on Wikipedia, and when it does happen, it's quickly reverted back by editors who simply use programs (ex: Huggle, Twinkle) which enable fast review of all edits on the site across all pages.

{quoted}

But I can go into that wiki page right now and change that information to say that the 1st amendment allows you to freely enter people's homes and take stuff, if that goes unreported, it would stay like that for a long time and people will use that thinking it is credible information when it really isn't.

There's a reason why the wikipedia is not a recognized source when writing literature search on research papers.

Yes, and I bet that two things will happen:

1. It will be, swiftly, corrected.
2. You may have your IP banned from editing Wikipedia.

The beauty of crowd sourced knowledge is that inconsistencies are quickly dealt with. As I stated before, this is not a research paper, this is a public message board.