I think a much larger concern is that political activists have fully committed to using the open nature of Wikipedia to slant articles in their favoured direction. Unfortunately, the public and other consumers of Wikipedia have been slower to catch on, resulting in a slow poisoning of what was once accurate knowledge about the world.
Why is this a concern? Like either you have open sources of information that have distributed vulnerabilities or closed sources of information that have centralized vulnerabilities.
The risk that some articles are biased is way better than reading a corporate encyclopedia where all articles being biased. That’s open access, that’s a bottom up process. That’s “democracy” so to speak.
A thing I’ve noticed more and more recently, is that everyone talks about like small - open source, small towns, small business, but then decries the tradeoffs.
Like socialists basically saying Walmart is better than small business because they can use their efficiencies to pay better.
So much “fuck it, let’s do autocracy” because self-government is hard.
appreciatorBus|22 days ago
techblueberry|22 days ago
The risk that some articles are biased is way better than reading a corporate encyclopedia where all articles being biased. That’s open access, that’s a bottom up process. That’s “democracy” so to speak.
A thing I’ve noticed more and more recently, is that everyone talks about like small - open source, small towns, small business, but then decries the tradeoffs.
Like socialists basically saying Walmart is better than small business because they can use their efficiencies to pay better.
So much “fuck it, let’s do autocracy” because self-government is hard.
techblueberry|22 days ago
“Why isn’t Wikipedia more like tik tok” is certainly a take.
asdefghyk|22 days ago
1970-01-01|22 days ago