3 ms·
I mean if you want to say vaccines cause autism, yeah, you're going to get shut down by the moderators. But if you, as an "anyone" who is a railway engineer who
by zamnos 4y ago
I mean if you want to say vaccines cause autism, yeah, you're going to get shut down by the moderators. But if you, as an "anyone" who is a railway engineer who's able to write effectively about electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes, or are a person living in, say, I don't know, East Palestine, Ohio, or now, Springfield, Ohio, and want to add things to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Ohio_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Ohio_train_derailment, you can just click the edit button and add stuff.
Anyone with an Internet connection can go to their website or load up their app and hit [edit] and make changes, and it's been that way since 2001. There's not even a user account required for most. There are those that get caught up by wide IP-based blocks against middle schooler spam, and they do have to create a user account.
- chris_wot 4y agoExcept you can’t. That stuff will often get reverted summarily. There are a group of abusive admins who will defend certain editors no matter how awful they are.
- dalbasal 4y agoLook at the forest. Sure. It's an encyclopedia. It's heavily edited. Sometimes it's conflucted. There are cliques. Etc. But.. they produce an encyclopedia. It's actually free. It's transparent. It's very high quality. It's a working system. Whatever the fairness grievances people have with "censorship," on Wikipedia, they are nowhere near as bad as they are on any commery platform. Yet... whether it's Wikipedia's finances, moderation or anything... Wikipedia attract more need rage than any of them. Imo, this is the biggest barrier to freedom online. Freedom and transparency make people insanely critical and hostile.
- chris_wot 4y agoWell, if it can’t be improved then it is stagnating at best, and degrading at worst. And it is definitely degrading.