9 comments

[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 24.4 ms ] thread
Wikipedia is not what it claims to be. It is signed up to the SDGs which are a top down UN directive rather than a truly grassroots programme.

A lot of Wikipedia is a joke.

The most glaring problem of all is that most of its labour is unpaid, despite its content being used by commercial ventures such as Amazon.

I think the low quality of the criticisms of Wikipedia speak to its high quality as a source of information.
> but the encyclopedia’s founder believes that transparency is the key to survival

Slightly ironic, given Wales is a co-founder of Wikipedia, not the founder. Probably would have been nice to ensure the article got it correctly, considering the drama that happened around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Co-founder_status_...

Ehhh, I think he’s earned it given one of the “founders” has had basically zero input on anything modern Wikipedia has become.
(comment deleted)
What a weird nit to pick. This doesn't really seem to be an issue in any other usage of a grouped noun? Being a co-founder implies that you (and at least one other person) are both founders.
You can only trust wikipedia as much as you can trust the news media. If everyone in the news media is against you or ignores you then it's not possible to get a secondary source to fight misinformation or other narritives that one side is pushing.
People like Wales have a bizarre blindness to what's happening in our society:

> Jimmy Wales: If you look at the Edelman Trust Barometer survey, which has been going since 2000, you’ve seen this steady erosion of trust in journalism and media and business and to some degree in each other. ...

> What do you think has gone wrong?

> I think there’s a number of things that have gone wrong. The trend actually goes back to before the Edelman data. Some of the things I would point to are the decline of the business model for local journalism. To the extent that the business model for journalism has been very difficult, full stop, you see the rise of low-quality outlets, clickbait headlines, all of that. But also that local piece means people aren’t necessarily getting information that they can verify with their own eyes, and I think that tends to undermine trust. In more recent times, obviously the toxicity of social media hasn’t been helpful.

How about a political movement's explicit, extremely aggressive all out assault on social trust, specifically journalism - an 'enemy of the people', target of law enforcement and laws, etc. And how about toxic capitalism's (emphasis on 'toxic', not all capitalism) actually valuing and aggressively embracing complete abandonment and manipulation of trust in order to profit by any means possible (e.g. stereotypical private equity squeezing money out of nursing homes)?

What planet to people like Wales live on? They are so used to ducking this issue that they almost can't see it anymore.