The problem with Wikipedia's discouragement of paid editing

[ylevental]

Good editing takes time. And time is money.

[Boink Boink]

Wikipedia doesn't recognise time.....

* Editors contributions are irrelevant (i.e. their time is unimportant)
* Wikipedia has no deadline (because why would anyone want a finished encyclopedia!)
* Ten hours work to ban a bad actor who wasted one hour or volunteer time? (because vengeance is timeless)
* The world has been a paradise since 2008 (Wikipedia peaked, knowledge was set free, everyone is happy)

The hostility against paid editing is probably all about time. As in, Wikishits don't EVER want to be reminded that the only reason they give away for free what others can charge for, is because they're talentless or stupid or up to no good.

[ylevental]

Wikipedia doesn't recognise time.....

* Editors contributions are irrelevant (i.e. their time is unimportant)
* Wikipedia has no deadline (because why would anyone want a finished encyclopedia!)
* Ten hours work to ban a bad actor who wasted one hour or volunteer time? (because vengeance is timeless)
* The world has been a paradise since 2008 (Wikipedia peaked, knowledge was set free, everyone is happy)

The hostility against paid editing is probably all about time. As in, Wikishits don't EVER want to be reminded that the only reason they give away for free what others can charge for, is because they're talentless or stupid or up to no good.

All this, it's just insecurity and/or manipulation.

[wexter]

All this, it's just insecurity and/or manipulation.

No, it is just about a "failed construct" to mean

an idea was hatched with certain elements/components; that were not based on anything other than a "sales pitch" sitting on new emergent technology.

The elements "don't work" - process of the platform including free labor
The technology is "old" - wiki vs computer generated
Folks believe the "sales pitch" which does not hold water - anyone can write an encyclopedia; the product is not an encyclopedia.

The work product never gets improved (or evolves) even with a hundred(s) million plus dollar endowment. (Amazon, Musk, Facebook, Google, Soros, Dalio).

What is the cost of a poor quality work product built on legacy technology which benefits major corporations?

Current technology is in the processes of supplanting Wikipedia; the endowment will let this bad idea live on for some time to come; (Microsoft, Facebook, Musk, Google, and Private Capital) have moved on and they are dedicating billions into emerging information technologies.

How relevant is Gizzycatbella? or any of the other crazy cats?