As much as I value Wikipedia as a resource, I've personally never understood the culture behind it. Long-term, to me, it's unclear what the future holds for it.
It's both a never ending disaster and the greatest resource in the history of the world.
That's a great way to put it. With the usual things-can-always-be-improved caveat, I suspect that the same things that make Wikipedia such a valuable resource (crowdsourcing, broad scope, etc.) will continue to inevitably lead to tensions--whether organizationally or over things like inclusion/deletion.
That's most of human nature you're describing there.
Sounds like a description of democracy too. :-)
a very simple and well written version of the thoughts I've been having around Wikipedia.
I feel like it would be a good resource/library to have once we can just upload information straight to our minds or accessible by thought.
Given the amount of politics involved in editor circles I don't even think valuing it as a resource is that great.
Show me an editor circle free of politics and I'll show you a circle of one.
> Long-term, to me, it's unclear what the future holds for it.
Why specifically? (Honest question).
To me, there are three parts to Wikipedia: content, community, and organization. Pretty obvious the content has the potential to live on, though without a solid community, it'll get rotten pretty quickly. As for the organization, To me, it seems pretty driven by the founder, though might be wrong, and also, not sure what to make of it. Basically, my opinion is that if the community dies, Wikipedia dies.