Carrite wrote:You say the word "Wikipedian" like that's a bad thing. It's not.
Well, I would have expected some reasons to be provided here to convince me I am wrong. I have previously written an extensive thesis about how there are no good Wikipedians, not even the ones who manifestly only do good. It was not rebutted are far as I recall.
Carrite wrote:Nor is Wikipedia a bad thing — in concept or in general practice.
The concept is a fine one. And that is where it ends. There is frankly no argument to be made that the way it has been implemented, has not seriously damaged the world. I suspect your admiration of the project is based purely on the benefit it has given you. I could be convinced if you put meat on these bones. To date, I've never even seen you try.
Carrite wrote:Are there abusive people or POV-pushers at Wikipedia who need to be shown the door? Yes
Are they being shown the door? No.
Carrite wrote:Are there structural problems that need to be fixed? Yes.
Are they being fixed? No.
Carrite wrote:Is WMF a money-grubbing, money-wasting, incompetent bureaucracy raising tens of millions of dollars a year cashing in on the work of unpaid and underappreciated volunteers? Most certainly.
Fine words from someone who considers themselves to be one of these unappreciated volunteers. A more balanced view is available from serious critics, who recognise that what Wikipedia is, and therefore what is wrong, is 95% volunteer made. The volunteers could change the culture. The volunteers could improve the content. The volunteers could write better code, and maintain it. You're one of these volunteers, what have you