> Similarly, the low-hanging fruit has already been done That's a popular reply to criticism of the poor status of the Wikipedia community, but it's largely fa

> Similarly, the low-hanging fruit has already been done That's a popular reply to criticism of the poor status of the Wikipedia community, but it's largely false for anything that is not an US-centric vision of popular topics on Western culture. As I've written elsewhere, the toxic culture and ossified rules would make it impossible nowadays to bootstrap the collaboration efforts needed to fix the well-known biases in coverage. The same policies that keep the current content to crumble from bots and advertisers prevent us from regaining the original drive of the original writing effort. > It's a terrible article, That's how all articles in Wikipedia started. > and should be rolled into another one. That's a non-sequitur. If it's a notable independent topic, it should exist on its own, unless there are good reasons why it should be included only as part of a larger article where it's a natural fit. Most often that not, there is no other place where that content would make sense as a section of a larger topic, so that mindset will ultimately lead to deletion of notable and well-referenced content.