Comment on [deleted]
GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml 3 days agoDamn, would’ve been obvious from from the username and post history. If I’d bothered to look at that. Thanks for your comment.
Comment on [deleted]
GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml 3 days agoDamn, would’ve been obvious from from the username and post history. If I’d bothered to look at that. Thanks for your comment.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 days ago
No problem at all. Full disclosure: I’m a longtime member of and frequent contributor to Wikipedia. I have a bias in this. I’ll say, however, that because we’re not a monolith, internal criticism of the project is varied, rampant, and welcomed. It’s no surprise when the entire draw of editing is “this thing sucks; make it better”. Criticism is so prolific that for the project’s 25th anniversary, the English Wikipedia’s official newsletter, The Signpost, published a dire, 6500-word warning about the project’s trajectory.
We’re constantly looking for criticism so we can improve, and it’s why, if you can believe it, we love seeing new faces and articles published like “I tried to edit Wikipedia for a week; here’s how it burned my house down”. What we don’t value, however, is criticism made in bad faith; there’s nothing to talk about when one side of the discussion wants to just sit around and Gish gallop all day for transparent political ends.