Wikipedia editors, unsung heroes, keep it one of the last best places online

theglobeandmail.com

18 points·throw0101d··6 comments

This is a very misleading narrative. Wikipedia is now a popularity contest and subject to commercial pressures. As Larry Sanger (co-founder of wikipedia) noted:

"Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist ..., it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated)."

Compare it with scholarpedia which is expert edited and of a much higher quality (although in a much narrower domain).

And has been for years.

And is very much the refuge of the rules lawyer, and those who can be more stubborn than you.

Not to mention all the unofficial backchannels and grifting and such, denied until caught out ("I'm about to make a troublesome edit. Have my back and police anyone who interferes.")

There's nothing better with a similar scope. Improving Wikipedia is a worthy goal but any criticism that doesn't recognize its uniquely useful place does more harm than good.

Wikipedia is a poor source of any information that concerns politics, philosophy, history, and partly economics, because its editors actively resist any sources or opinions that they deem right wing or conservative. There is a massive amount of lying by omission.

It's probably better for Wikipedia's quality if editors remain unsung, rather than it being status-conferring.

https://archive.is/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ar...

https://archive.is/5gC7b

Reply on news.ycombinator.com