Wikipedia CEO literally said that’s what he wants. He wants people to debate. He’s done interviews where he doesn’t want a single person to be the source of truth. The chaos is what brings consensus.
You have to be stupid if you don’t think companies don’t pay people for this. It’s really not difficult to hire a “Reputation Management” team to sprinkle positive information or at least control it. Im in team meetings about it, where we have staff members who moderate major social groups and lie about endorsements.
While it’s correct to say that wikipedia is not an “original” source, it’s disingenuous and / or hyperbole to suggest that “it’s a bunch of nerds creating a version of reality”.
The vast majority of hours invested into wikipedia are provided by volunteers who believe in the freedom of accurate, factual, unbiased information.
Of course the quality or balance of information is threatened by bad actors, but significant resources are invested in mitigating that threat. This post is a great example of cautious, transparent editorial decisions.
Damn the downvotes. Where is OP wrong?
Wikipedia CEO literally said that’s what he wants. He wants people to debate. He’s done interviews where he doesn’t want a single person to be the source of truth. The chaos is what brings consensus.
You have to be stupid if you don’t think companies don’t pay people for this. It’s really not difficult to hire a “Reputation Management” team to sprinkle positive information or at least control it. Im in team meetings about it, where we have staff members who moderate major social groups and lie about endorsements.
While it’s correct to say that wikipedia is not an “original” source, it’s disingenuous and / or hyperbole to suggest that “it’s a bunch of nerds creating a version of reality”.
The vast majority of hours invested into wikipedia are provided by volunteers who believe in the freedom of accurate, factual, unbiased information.
Of course the quality or balance of information is threatened by bad actors, but significant resources are invested in mitigating that threat. This post is a great example of cautious, transparent editorial decisions.