I would say the funding model is what makes the difference.

Wikipedia sells information (in the form of "Donate or this could all go away") and is financially incentivized to make that information comprehensive and high quality. YouTube sells influence, and it is precisely that practice I object to.

Think about the videos on your homepage, in your recommended videos, which publishers you hear from immediately and which disappeared. I can see it trying to manipulate me.

> Think about the videos on your homepage, in your recommended videos, which publishers you hear from immediately and which disappeared. I can see it trying to manipulate me.

There are billions of videos on YouTube with millions getting added every day.

YouTube has to decide what to put in front of you.

You are not required to browse the home page nor any recommendation list.

Except it's also a battleground for a ton of insidious recommendations that now distract you instead of educate you.

I know many people who spend 10 hours+ a day just listening to inflammatory content

It's also not just the consumers. So many great educational channels have been forced to appeal to click bait or lower quality content because of the nature of the platform

You can download the entirety of Wikipedia. YouTube is blocking YouTube downloaders. It's a crime against humanity that they lured people into to contribute videos to this platform. By losing money for years before being acquired, they ensured nobody could possibly compete with their own video platform. Its not a nonforprofit or library. They can freely censor, restrict, and edit videos as they please, especially for deceased accounts.