3 ms·
Wikipedia, for better or worse, serves an indispensable role for millions of people. So even if you disagree with its leadership and its editors with biased age
by needacig 13y ago
Wikipedia, for better or worse, serves an indispensable role for millions of people. So even if you disagree with its leadership and its editors with biased agendas and would like to see its demise, a more realistic solution seems, to me, to be to put on your writing cap and become an editor yourself. In this case, it is actually very possible to live according to the saying, "Become the change you wish to see in the world." A bunch of new contributors focused on fixing things might help.
Although I do remember reading stories at one point about new contributors' edits getting frequently rolled back by Wikipedians with more permissions. That could be a barrier to entry, but it's unclear to me how much of a problem this really is.
- bradleyjg 13y agoThe second you try and do anything non-trivial without first "paying your dues" (and kissing the right asses) you find all your work trashed. If you complain or try to keep it in place you'll see a dozen different bureaucratic maneuvers involving obscure jargon and weird, diificult to use, administrative pages and processes to thwart you. It's amazing the wikipedia is as useful as it is given how utterly hostile it is to new contributors. I hope it continues to be useful and thrives, but I'm not so masochistic to actually fight to volunteer.