4 ms·
Right: because you shifted the argument to editors from moderators; what they need are not people to edit articles, but instead to do community management that
by saurik 5y ago
Right: because you shifted the argument to editors from moderators; what they need are not people to edit articles, but instead to do community management that reduces the toxicity of the current de facto bureaucracy that is designed to prevent arguments but instead seems to cause them.
- bawolff 5y agoThe parent literally used the phrase "editors/moderators". The current bureaucracy is not designed to prevent arguments, its designed to make sure such arguments are productive. Whether it succedes is debatable. Its certainly not without issue.
- checkerscaptian 5y agoboth of your comments are very interesting, i feel like there should be a way that Wikipedia could auto check facts using an algorithm to flag anything incorrect by referencing up to date reputable sources like NASA, Britannica ect.then use the editors/moderators to pick up anything that was flagged.
- akolbe 5y agoThe Wikimedia Foundation plays absolutely no role in editing or moderating Wikipedia content. I employs no editors/moderators. All that work is done exclusively by unpaid volunteers.