Yes, a lot of extremely stupid Americans voted that way, despite Trump’s promises to inflict massive tariffs on our country, which guarantees that inflation will get much worse.
(And you forgot that Biden wasn’t even in the election.)
Inflation had been declining since 2022, thanks to Biden. But again, people are stupid.
And there’s no way a million people could all be racist! Not all at once!
True. Sad!
The writer of that article is delusional if they think “Some of my best friends are black” first became popular in the 2010s. I’m 65, and I’ve been hearing that phrase and its variants since I was old enough to pay attention, so since the mid-1960s.
Like most Wikipedia articles, the author didn’t “think” anything. They’re writing what reliable sources said. In this case, The Guardian and The New York Times.
(And articles on Wikipedia are a collaboration between multiple authors, usually reached through discussion, debate, and consensus.)
Maybe the writers for those newspapers were delusional, though.
Also, you’re misquoting the article. It claims:
The phrase, which gained popularity in the mid-2010s
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t popular until then. That’s poor reading comprehension. It’s saying it became most popular in that time period.
Maybe it was prominent in the 60s, just not as prominent as in the 2010s.
You’re right, I remember the phrase was especially prominent back in the Archie Bunker era of race relations, and it was already being mocked back then (like Archie Bunker).
I would hope people who write Wikipedia articles think at least a little bit, or else they might as well let AI do it. It’s kind of stupid to devote an article to a run-of-the-mill racist phrase.
I just read both articles. Neither of them say that the phrase gained particular popularity in the 2010s. They both allude to the fact that it is an old sentiment, even if they don’t say so outright. The author was clearly playing fast and loose with their citations. So both delusional and dishonest.
If they meant this softer claim, they phrased it in a terrible way. You could justify that kind of sloppy writing for a rando on a message board but not a professional journalist at The Guardian or NYT.
And regardless, the softer claim is also stupid.
So fix it.
Seriously, that’s how Wikipedia works.
It was prominent in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010’s and now the 2020s. I’m a black person who actually pays attention to such things, because they affect me personally. I assure you that the 2010s were not special in that regard. And I don’t need to use fraudulent citations to prove a silly point. My assumption is that the writer thought the phrase became prominent in the 2010s because that is when they became an adult and started noticing things.
No thanks. I’m not fucking around with Wikipedia editors. The only correction I’ve ever made to to Wikipedia is when some “wit” changed the title of the Dashiell Hammett short story collection from “The Big Knockover” to The Big Knockers, and I changed it back.
I think that’s probably a safe assumption to make. Wikipedia shouldn’t be a trusted source on its own because people can put whatever wrong thing they want until someone else fixes it.
What Wikipedia is useful for, is a general overview if the article is high quality (articles often have ratings that you can see on their talk pages) and it is often a good place to use to find good sources, even if it isn’t a good source itself.
Given my history, I almost never use Wikipedia to back up any claims I make, though of course I still find the site very useful.
Fighting vandalism is very useful to the project, so thank you for that. 
And then some basement dwelling asshole with a massive bug up his ass about this particular phrase will edit it back the moment you touch the article, six times a day if necessary, until you either give up or he and his buddies brigade their way up the Wikipedia hierarchy and get an edit lock placed on the article.
Seriously, that’s how Wikipedia works.
Google Ngrams finds “Some of my best friends” (in books) having a striking increase in popularity between 1940 and 1950 and remaining at a relatively steady rate since through 2000 (N-grams seems unreliable after 2000).
Sampling the books for early in the 20th century, I find criticism of “Some of my best friends are Jews” in a book from 1936, and 1918 (in 1918, there’s a parody article called “Some of my best friends are Gentiles”!)
So it’s an old idea.
I’d be interested to see a link to a Wikipedia article that is edit-locked and contains substantial false information.
No, because of the 3RR rule (reverting 3 times in a row is a bright line offense that will lead to an automatic block if reported).
If someone reverts you, bring it up on the talk page and ping them. If they don’t want to engage, bring it to the administrators’ noticeboard (specifically ANI would be most appropriate). Someone will straighten that shit out real quick.
That’s how Wikipedia works.
Heck, if you run into a problem just ask me. I gave up my admin mantle but I still know how to get things done and I still know people over there, and I know people remember me.
Then they were stupid. And bigoted, because they voted for bigotry in the name of greed and stupidity.
Voting for Trump was an act of bigotry all by itself, because it was voting in favor of bigotry.
Someday, I’m going to get around to editing the Wiki page for the Disney movie “The Monkey’s Uncle” because it’s got the plot wrong, which irritates me (I’ll need to find a proper reference to, of course).
New phone, who this?
I have yet to see a medical/health-based Wikipedia article that contains significant misinformation, whether through error or determined efforts by malevolent parties.
it’s possible that some such articles have been edit-locked to thwart trolls and bad actors.
I really dislike sneering dismissals solely on the basis of “huh huh Wikipedia”*, not only because the articles commonly contain useful and factual links, but because the pieces themselves are often competently written and can stand on their own merits.
*a common refrain from the sort of cranks who also deny that any mainstream media reports can be accepted.