In Norwegian the knight is called "springer", as mentioned in the article, but many call it "hest" ("horse") too. They are both valid names.
The translation of "springer" is a bit imprecise. Instead of simply "jumper", it describes a "human or animal that can jump". A horse fits that description well
"Springer" is actually sometimes used to describe a knight's horse instead of the most common word. So "springer" has connections to both horse and knight.
Can you cite some example articles? It's a for-profit Series-B startup [0] in an ever-worsening digital publishing market [1] and article sourcing is paid writers not peer-reviewed crowdsourced, so I expect parts might be worse than Wikipedia, and certainly have very selective coverage. But at first glance I didn't see any glaring errors. Also I expect they won't have an openly exposed peer-review editing process, so if an article turns out to be bad they might delete or hide it (but I can't find any such).
> According to the sacred book of creation myths, the Popol Vuh, primates were a life form that had arisen during one of the many earlier experimental periods of creation by the gods.
> According to the myth, the gods were ultimately disappointed with the result, which they found to be too frivolous and rebellious and thus strove to perfect and shape the form of some of the monkeys.
Maybe "flat out wrong" was too harsh. But I don't think this is exactly right. The earlier attempt were men made out of wood, who almost all drowned in a great flood. The few survivors turned into monkeys. The second attempt at man was made out of maize, and those survived to become humans.
But I don't think there's anything about the gods being displeased because the first creation were monkeys. Monkeys from what I understand were more of a byproduct.
I'd say that was one minor error in one article (10 paragraphs, 24 sentences) of their ~25K articles.
It's not even that that single article is "flat out wrong": only that paragraph (and maybe the heading). Can you cite any other article as being wrong?
AO looks more reliable than Wikipedia (obviously much lower coverage).
Yeah maybe I was too harsh. But I only knew that because I'm writing a book that features Mesoamerica and my factchecker told me it was wrong. Which made me think there may be other things that are wrong that I don't have access to an expert on.
