Wikipedia Sucks!

rhindle wrote: My own 2 cents: I think, at least on the surface, that the deletion of the thread seemed heavy handed. A change to the thread title could have been done or even move to a non-public area. Of course there may be more details I am not aware of so I'm not going to outright say the thread deletion was the wrong choice. However, if the assertions are considered bullshit, I think proving it's bullshit is better than deleting, even if it's for the upteenth time. Hersch is an "OG" critic so I figured he'd get more leeway but did he "exhaust" the management's patience?

As to the more meta discussion about wikipedia criticism in general, I do agree that there are bigger fish to fry in today's world than WP. Sure, it's still dysfunctional with a lot of problems but it's the same ol' same ol' and the criticism is same ol' same ol' also. Just some of the names have changed. Right now, social media is much more toxic as more get their info which is tailored to their confirmation biases where they are much more prone to "fake news" regardless of political persuasion. More and more are opening their eyes to this and there is improvement. Even though this site is dedicated to WP there is a window here to branch out to social media criticism as well and not just when it's at least tangential to WP. If those in charge here don't want to do that then that's fine but I think there could be an opportunity here.

Kumioko wrote:Yeah the WPO site has really turned sellout that's for sure. I also think it's funny the Kelly and Greybeard came out of retirements to pontificate on how great Zoloft was doing and how the great steamroller of wikipedia has become unstoppable. They literally said WPO is, and always has been irrelevant to Wikipedia.