To be clear, I think it would be far fairer to say something to the effect of:
>The goal isn't accuracy, it's expediency
I would argue that a majority of the people who use Wikipedia do not know, care, or have ever looked at the efforts done on Wikipedia to document changes. Transparency, to the people to serves, is then irrelevant. I would, however argue that people do expect information on Wikipedia to be up to date. That they want a relatively short account of a topic, with the most relevant information available.
Basically, wikipedia is McDonald's. Fast, quick, easy. When you want something high quality, you go to a "sit down" restaurant where they prepare it individually. It takes a lot longer, costs more, and is presented in an entirely different manner. The intentions, use case, and clientele of each are not the same, but they do overlap from time-to-time. It is a mistake to compare one to the other. They serve different purposes.
To be clear, I think it would be far fairer to say something to the effect of:
>The goal isn't accuracy, it's expediency
I would argue that a majority of the people who use Wikipedia do not know, care, or have ever looked at the efforts done on Wikipedia to document changes. Transparency, to the people to serves, is then irrelevant. I would, however argue that people do expect information on Wikipedia to be up to date. That they want a relatively short account of a topic, with the most relevant information available.
Basically, wikipedia is McDonald's. Fast, quick, easy. When you want something high quality, you go to a "sit down" restaurant where they prepare it individually. It takes a lot longer, costs more, and is presented in an entirely different manner. The intentions, use case, and clientele of each are not the same, but they do overlap from time-to-time. It is a mistake to compare one to the other. They serve different purposes.