> ...one shared quality of every single person I've met who has stuck around Wikipedia for a long time is ... they put a low value on their own time. ... Who ar

> ...one shared quality of every single person I've met who has stuck around Wikipedia for a long time is ... they put a low value on their own time. ... Who are they? ... I think common professions are software and computer engineering. Especially with the meme equating Wikipedia with "knowledge," it's worth highlighting that Wikipedia invariably reflects the biases of the people who write it, and they're weird people with weird personality traits. > All of which leads to my larger question, which is — is the writing and editing process working? > AR: I mean, the answer is no. There are people who just kind of wait for their opponent to get carpal tunnel — and that's not productive for anyone. I would call those sorts of debates tendentious. You're not trying to find consensus.... > AR: If you're putting anything out into the world, please do not cite Wikipedia! Do not do that. I don't trust it. Ever. That's why you check all the sources. Ideally, every single thing, every single piece of information besides, like, “the sky is blue”-type stuff should be tied to a source. I would say, just cite those because people interpret things weirdly sometimes, and you never know. Wikipedia is a great outlet for propaganda, even if it's mostly pushed by opinionated people who "put a low value on their own time." And it's naive to thing it's this fair adversarial thing where all the sides fight and the truth pops out. There's a meta-game where one side (usually the one that's more in tune with the Wikipedia's general baises) uses the rules to get the other side excluded or otherwise boxed out. > Back in the day, there were five — call them guidelines, decrees, commandments — sent down from on high from the less good co-founder, Larry Sanger. And the last one was: “Ignore all rules.” And ha! That's still there. "The less good co-founder"? Why the swipe?