To be fair it is a little left leaning and the editors sometime massive jerks.
However, it really isn’t bad at all. They do a pretty decent job of publishing factual information and Wikipedia is useful to a lot of people. Even if it was publishing propaganda they would still be protected under free speech. There are way more sketchy non profits than Wikipedia. It is kind of scaring that it is now a target
We need a federated Wikipedia (Fedipedia)
- It would allow multiple definitions for words (not eveyone agrees with what certain words mean)
- It would allow some instances to focus on being apolitical or more political.
- It would allow all wikis to be condenced into one platform (including possibly wikis like the Arch Wiki)
- It would help combat censorship
For number one, there are articles that express different voices around a topic. Definitions often have multiple sections to express different voicws. Do they not?
I think a political project is a different beast from wikipedia. There will be some biases but not as its grounding purpose.
The consensus is somehow already constructed by the current set up. Most people just don’t (and my feeling is that will and should not, like in the case of vaccine scienxe) participate.
Censorship of which kind, though?
Publicly available factual information is a threat to an authoritarian regime
To quote something from lefty blogs in the W era: “Reality has a clear leftwing bias”
Wikipedia, archive.org, and any similar essential services ought to be migrating their hosting and organizational headquarters to outside the US ASAP.
They literally don’t generate any revenue. Wikipedia is quite literally the definition of a non-profit.
Also, trump is barred from running non-profits due to fraud in NY, I feel like that should disqualify him from making these kinds of decisions.
