Some more anecdotal evidence: My life partner did her PhD on a historic consumer organization in my country and the additions, edits and corrigenda she proposed to the wikipedia article were rejected.
So Wikipedia is like the worst of both worlds if you compare it to historic encyclopedias (who were vast works with contents curated by professors/experts and professional editors): Like the old world, it still is not as democratic as we would want it to be, and it lacks the academic rigor we can expect from something like the Encyclopedia Britannica. It’s just that the editing/moderation power has moved to faceless people on the internet.
It’s hard to give much credence to an article which claims that wikipedia provides literally zero value. It’s not perfect, and the rules about what evidence they will accept can be annoying at times, but I think the information value it has created is clearly enormous.
Wikipedia is not only a monopoly; it is the very worst monopoly, one that saps wealth, erodes knowledge, spreads false or misleading information, allows anonymous edits, and returns nothing to the economy.
The fact that one person can’t change something alone isn’t evidence against democracy. If I say that I want my government to implement policy X and my government doesn’t do it that doesn’t mean that I don’t live in a democracy.
Democracy actually needs the engagement of more people. It’s frustrating to me to read a reddit thread about how a Wikipedia article is flawed, when half the amount of engagement that the reddit thread gets would likely be enough to change the Wikipedia article. This doesn’t mean that I want people to organize together to go to a Wikipedia article. The EA community gotten in a few conflicts in the past with that and they don’t need to be repeated.
Whether or not you like Wikipedia doesn’t change that it’s a central part of the public narrative. Many people use it to inform themselves. Journalists frequently check the Wikipedia article to get an overview over the topic.
Wikipedia sadly is not as democratic as you might think: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/01/wikipedia-the-overlooked-monopoly.html
Some more anecdotal evidence: My life partner did her PhD on a historic consumer organization in my country and the additions, edits and corrigenda she proposed to the wikipedia article were rejected.
So Wikipedia is like the worst of both worlds if you compare it to historic encyclopedias (who were vast works with contents curated by professors/experts and professional editors): Like the old world, it still is not as democratic as we would want it to be, and it lacks the academic rigor we can expect from something like the Encyclopedia Britannica. It’s just that the editing/moderation power has moved to faceless people on the internet.
It’s hard to give much credence to an article which claims that wikipedia provides literally zero value. It’s not perfect, and the rules about what evidence they will accept can be annoying at times, but I think the information value it has created is clearly enormous.
The fact that one person can’t change something alone isn’t evidence against democracy. If I say that I want my government to implement policy X and my government doesn’t do it that doesn’t mean that I don’t live in a democracy.
Democracy actually needs the engagement of more people. It’s frustrating to me to read a reddit thread about how a Wikipedia article is flawed, when half the amount of engagement that the reddit thread gets would likely be enough to change the Wikipedia article. This doesn’t mean that I want people to organize together to go to a Wikipedia article. The EA community gotten in a few conflicts in the past with that and they don’t need to be repeated.
Whether or not you like Wikipedia doesn’t change that it’s a central part of the public narrative. Many people use it to inform themselves. Journalists frequently check the Wikipedia article to get an overview over the topic.
For the record I don’t think this comment deserved negative karma