to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > [citation needed] > > Now irony aside: manipulation efforts are to be expected on high > visibility sites like Wikipedia. I think that, given the constraints, > it's doing a pretty good job nevertheless. > > If you pick anything up on the internet, don't swallow it right away, > says my doctor. > > What's your source of wisdom? Facebook?
Nope - personal experience and I gave up on wikipedia 10+y ago. But the story of "Felix" is worth following If you read German: https://kenfm.de/tagesdosis-26-2-2019-wikipedia-manipulationen-feliks-darf-nach-gerichtsurteil-wieder-mit-klarnamen-genannt-werden/ or search for "Markus Fiedler Felix Wikipedia" I am confident that many topics are being edited without any factual evidence by very "interesting" people, who seem to have the time to follow all the topics of their interest. I won't go into detail, but I leave it to your imagination. Also at universities it is not considered as a source - with good reason I would add. Consequently I came to the conclusion that freedom in sense of anarchy is not possible and thus any structure based on it will not hold. Meritocracy however proves successful. Imagine the linux kernel without Linuz - it would never work. So it seems at the end there should be one to "sign of" and "merge" the changes. While there are good articles on the debian wiki, there are also bad once and if you are not familiar with linux and debian, you never know what you are dealing with. There are also many not well maintained or outdated (and don't ask for examples please). If you ask me, there should be someone close to the development in specific area, who can sign of documents to be published online. Let the community come with suggestions in the background and you adopt the changes you think are meaningful. If you wish be it something like a blog, but to the front should come only high quality.
