"Wikipedia is losing editors": https://mashable.com/2013/01/08/wikipedia-losing-editors/?eu...
"Nearly all of Wikipedia is written by just 1 percent of its editors": https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-editors-eli...
"Wikipedia’s diversity gap echoes around the internet": https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/04/04/wikipedias-diver...
"Wikipedia has cancer": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Years ago I had a friend who worked for Wikimedia Foundation and was very enthusiastic about it. That optimism didn't last for long. He left after a few years citing WF's messaging style of "holding the content hostage" during fundraising drives and the established, exclusive contributor community that, more often than not, would drive away new contributors with snippy responses and arcane editing rules.
Wikipedia seems to somehow be hanging by its fingernails for the last decade or so, despite being somewhere in the 20's on that list.
I guess something was done right. Next time even better?
"have anything better? how specifically is is it bad or biased compared to alternatives?"
silence
https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-tracker/
https://web.archive.org/web/20190410141316/old.ycombinator.c... (Item #23)
Thanks for that.
Meanwhile, the foundation is some sort of self-perpetuating money vacuum expanding at a great rate while expenditures for actually running Wikipedia is stagnant, if anything getting cheaper. It turns out a wishy-washy NGO save the world mission is a lot more exciting than the daily struggle of community building, and with the foundation all these do-gooders don't even have to forgo the competitive salary.
Obviously a bit exaggerated, but there is a lot of truth here.