This is a weird article. I felt baited by its content, which has little to do with the title. Also, lots of marketing-y buzzy words glossing up a food forum.
>site I co-founded in 2000, eGullet, was "a very big deal in the food world in the 2000s." I agree. It was a big deal, and it is the one achievement I am particularly proud of, even some 24 years later.
Wikipedia is basically a game of petty bureaucracy and rules lawyering. Some Wikipedians enjoy to wielding their small amount of power to get articles deleted, and the rest are mostly engaged in some unstated un-encyplopedic political or ideological project (because only admitting that is against Wikipedia's rules, and it's against Wikipedia's rules to call something like that out, even when obvious). A male tech journalist's article doesn't really fit with any of Wikipedia's current political projects, so it's a good target for the former because it's not going to get much defense from the latter.
Also, I hate AI-generated article header images. Might as well just put an IMAGE HERE placeholder, it would look better.
All the rules, bureaucracy and lawyering has produced a remarkable resource.
I'm sure it's easy to find anecdotes of failures, but if it does well in most cases, and better than any other alternative, then here's to more rules and bureaucracy!
> All the rules, bureaucracy and lawyering has produced a remarkable resource.
Eh, I'm not so impressed. I've seen how the sausage is made. IMHO, a lot of its kudos is due breadth (which is legitimately impressive) and to people trusting it because it's cheap (i.e. it's good because I happen to use it).
> I'm sure it's easy to find anecdotes of failures, but if it does well in most cases,
Wikipedia likes to toot its own horn about how it's detected and corrected 100% of the problems its detected and corrected.
> and better than any other alternative
Mainly due to a race to the bottom that's left no other alternative, because most people have low standards and you can't compete with free.
8 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 28.5 ms ] threadwait... what? Ain't 2000 was like yesterday ?
Also, I hate AI-generated article header images. Might as well just put an IMAGE HERE placeholder, it would look better.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
All the rules, bureaucracy and lawyering has produced a remarkable resource.
I'm sure it's easy to find anecdotes of failures, but if it does well in most cases, and better than any other alternative, then here's to more rules and bureaucracy!
Eh, I'm not so impressed. I've seen how the sausage is made. IMHO, a lot of its kudos is due breadth (which is legitimately impressive) and to people trusting it because it's cheap (i.e. it's good because I happen to use it).
> I'm sure it's easy to find anecdotes of failures, but if it does well in most cases,
Wikipedia likes to toot its own horn about how it's detected and corrected 100% of the problems its detected and corrected.
> and better than any other alternative
Mainly due to a race to the bottom that's left no other alternative, because most people have low standards and you can't compete with free.