yeah, apart from the admins that have absolute authority over everything and can do whatever the hell they want and make up arbitrary rules that disqualify your perfectly valid sources.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 year ago
And interestingly it’s trustable because it’s got no central authority core that can be corrupted
Metz@lemmy.world 1 year ago
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
that doesn’t happen
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
There definitely are editors who game the rules. And they are enough of a problem that sometimes rules need to be modified specifically to handle them.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
you seem to be conflating editors with admins.
Chais@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I think the word you’re looking for is “trustworthy” but yes.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I consider it a separate concept.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
That’s is definitely not true…
Wogi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Except there are defacto central authorities governing certain pages.
Not only that there’s a turf war going on for control of them.
Certain ahem religious organizations monitor a variety of pages and snipe any changes they disagree with. Businesses are doing it too.
Forester@yiffit.net 1 year ago
And certain politicians
Agent641@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Which religious orgs?
not_a_bot_i_swear@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Probably all of them… Just a guess though.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I haven’t participated in wikipedia enough to see how these turf wars play out. I’ve heard that, unsurprisingly, there are groups that control pages, some opposed and some unopposed. It’s a really interesting thing to me.
I’m afraid of politics, generally speaking. But I bet it would be interesting to be a part of all that.