This is yet another article written by an author who has not done much editing on Wikipedia, or any serious research on the issues surrounding the project. The

This is yet another article written by an author who has not done much editing on Wikipedia, or any serious research on the issues surrounding the project. The author buys into Wiki-utopianism -- the idea that Wikipedia could somehow become "the sum of all human knowledge". This false goal poisons the well, leading those who run the site, including the stewards mentioned, to believe that the site is perfect, and that it is the site's users that are a problem. Wikipedia is actually in terminal decline. The number of administrators is dropping and soon there won't be enough administrators to maintain the pages. [1] There is no plan from the Wikimedia Foundation to deal with further loss of administrators. As more editors leave the site expect more vandalism, even less reliability, more bias, and more scandals. More worrying is the author's glossing over of Wikipedia's gender gap. The article claims that "Everyone can participate and every voice is heard" but that's clearly not true. Wikipedia is written by 90% young white men, and the content reflects their interests and biases. Excluding women and minorities is hardly, as the article says, " a radically participatory model for this technologic age" It's no secret that Wikipedia's content creation process is one of the most toxic out there. Apart from the arcane and outdated interface, new users, women and minorities are routinely bullied and harassed. Even if they do survive the initial stages editors have to put up with ambiguous rules that are arbitrarily applied by aggressive admins. Admins are all-powerful and groupthink and bias is endemic. Despite a lot of talking about "inclusion" and "diversity," nothing will ever be fixed, because the core feature of wiki software is "content through conflict". As someone who runs a crowdsourced content site not that dissimilar to Wikipedia, but that has 80% female and minority participation, I have come to realize that the wiki software itself is the problem, attracting young men who are willing to fight for their knowledge to be displayed on the site. But the intensity of that fighting excludes many others. Much of the discussion about why women and minorities don't participate is like the lions at the watering hole wondering why the zebras aren't thirsty. [1]http://wikipediocracy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia%27s_%27death_spiral%27 http://wikipediocracy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia%27s...