First we would need to define what "social justice" is in this context (other than a very, very loaded term that is used to start flame wars). So what does wik

First we would need to define what "social justice" is in this context (other than a very, very loaded term that is used to start flame wars). So what does wikipedia do when it "does social justice"? Because the way I think about wikipedia their most important resource isn't content, it is people — and people tend to move in social spaces. We probably agree that an encyclopedia that should be worth it's paper/bytes that encyclopedia needs to represent reality. Representing reality has historically not worked well when all writers came from the same background and demographic, as this leads to blind spots or common misconceptions that occur in that populus to be reproduced. So having a more diverse cast of writers helps the quality of the built-in checks and balances because the holes in their perception are less likely to align. On top of that if more writers feel welcome (it is a social space after all), there will also more content on more topics. So when the telegraph polemically demands wikipedia should focus on the content, they might want to consider that they actually do.