Citing a litany of stuff that happened as far back as 15 years ago and raised alarm bells way back when is a sign that the governance model of Wikimedia works,

Citing a litany of stuff that happened as far back as 15 years ago and raised alarm bells way back when is a sign that the governance model of Wikimedia works, not that it’s broken. Governance is not about bad things happening; it’s about having set practices in place to manage the organization, including having ground rules when things go wrong. That this project tries selling these warmed-over scandals as basic reasons for its existence shows that it’s not serious. Every online collective eventually fosters corruption. The difference between this group and Wikimedia is that you know what you’re dealing with when it comes to Wikimedia. EDIT: Since the link is broken on the site, I will make the case that the cited “investigative journalist,” Helen Buyniski, is less than convincing, using her role to criticize Wikipedia’s stance on alternative medicine, just as an example: https://web.archive.org/web/20240521014407/http://helenofdestroy.com/index.php/exposing-wikipedia/49-wikipedia-rotten-to-the-core https://web.archive.org/web/20240521014407/http://helenofdes... Citing an apparent conspiracy theorist does not a convincing case make.