3 ms·

I think that's the problem — they are 'bitching' and are therefore dismissed as 'haters'. For the rest of the populace, Wikipedia is 'good enough' to casually l

I think that's the problem — they are 'bitching' and are therefore dismissed as 'haters'. For the rest of the populace, Wikipedia is 'good enough' to casually link to. And those complainers often have no appreciation for the circumstances which made it what it is. Many complaints are of the form 'there is an cabal of admins who engage in a conspiracy against me!', or 'how dare they want to delete MY article about my garage band that would otherwise gather dust for the next 20 years!'; and even more substantive criticisms are often coated in sensationalist language, which hurts their credibility, as in this article. No wonder they are not listened to. A dispassionate analysis of the flaws of Wikipedia would be helpful, but so far I haven't seen a single one.

bigbugbag 10y ago
> Many complaints are of the form 'there is an cabal of admins who engage in a conspiracy against me!' Well, it turned out to be true that wikipedia admins had a place to discuss contributors and coordinate actions against them. It made quite a ruckus at the time. A compendium of wikipedia criticism has been posted here: http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikiped...
- pwdisswordfish 10y ago
  That won't do. This is just a list of evidence-free assertions. I'm generally unimpressed with Wikipediocracy: they engage in exactly the kind of sensationalism that I'm so tired of.