XPost: alt.russian.z1, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics   
   XPost: nz.politics   
   From: os333@netc.eu   
      
    unherd.com   
      
   There's one crisis that cannot be messaged away, and that is   
   a marked decline in traffic to Wikipedia.org. If sustained,   
   this will mark the site's demise .. Human traffic to the site   
   had decreased by 8% over the past few months. That is a   
   staggering number .. In the span of little more than two   
   years, the percentage of survey respondents who use Wikipedia   
   to fact-check something dropped from around 55% to less than   
   40%. The number of people who use the site to keep themselves   
   informed dropped from over 50% to around 35%; those using the   
   site to learn about current events went from more than 30% to   
   less than 20% ..   
      
   "Encyclosphere" is fracturing. From an idea market dominated   
   by a single giant player, new sources of topic-based   
   information are emerging online. As Wikipedia continues to   
   dig into its "trust" narrative, what it doesn't realise is   
   that so much of that trust has already been eroded ..   
      
   ...   
      
   Indeed, the Wikipedia has not passed the test for accuracy and   
   neutrality etc, and it's sort of warning sign for those who are   
   seeking to promote something 'universal', - it may require much   
   higher information/ethical/etc standards as well as much deeper   
   detachment from misc passions/beliefs than you can imagine.   
      
      
      
   > The very idea of Wikipedia implies it shall be internally   
   > contradictory, by design. In different articles, some event   
   > or person might be covered with different assessments. There   
   > also might be notable discrepancies between versions of the   
   > same article in different languages. Discordance is natural   
   > when content is created with the participation of various   
   > and many enthusiasts/activists, whose experiences, cultural   
   > backgrounds and perspectives differ. Guidelines to cite and   
   > refer to reputable / neutral sources surely serve to ennoble   
   > it, but it cannot eliminate discrepancies, because sources   
   > seeming reputable for some groups of Wikipedia enthusiasts   
   > may not seem so for other groups. Such an internally   
   > controversial product nevertheless might have value as sort   
   > of great exhibition of existing - accepted or suggested -   
   > facts, beliefs and narratives, and diversity of views and   
   > stands even contributes to popularity. But, it's definitely   
   > not fit to be "a judge" in disputes or a fact-checking tool.   
   >   
   > Moreover, the above is written in the idealistic assumption   
   > that the Wikipedia content is created by honest, sincere and   
   > selfless enthusiasts. In real life, as soon as something   
   > enthusiasm-driven becomes popular, there are powers seeking   
   > to adapt it for serving their particular interest. Wikipedia   
   > was not an exception. Still, for pretty big number of topics   
   > it remains to be a useful source of information. However, it   
   > has become increasingly biased and unreliable, even fiction-   
   > bearing when it comes to *sensitive topics, somehow related   
   > to cultist and political indoctrination, to various kinds of   
   > present and past conflicts.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)