Questionable leadership or not, it is a lighthouse in the information dystopia of the 2020s, which literally helps hold society together.
It pioneered a novel mechanism for collaborating on a project with minimal trust between contributors. But it was also riddled with bias and vulnerable to exploitation and as prone to cultivating disinformation as a universal source of truth.
Rather than fixating on the site as some last bastion of Web 1.0 nostalgia, we would do well to do better than Wikipedia.
Organizations like the Internet archive project have, imho, done as much or more than Wikipedia because of their commitment to accumulating primary source material. Managing that catalog and incorporating it into an encyclopedia of knowledge is much more than just stuffing a hard drive full of editor arguments and dead links from the old site.
Well, unfortunately, there is no project like that with Wikipedia’s critical mass. Most attempts with any attention are rather horrific. See: Grokipedia.
If Wikipedia dies, nothing good will replace it.
I know that’s a bit defeatist, but I really think its “the best we got.” Nothing better is coming with the state the internet is in now.
And I just want to emphasize that maybe a small community could build something better. I know.
But in terms of “keeping a healthy knowledge base for civilization,” that kind of project doesn’t matter if no-one sees it. Wikipedia is valuable because its a reasonably sane default reference for billions of people, that isn’t some megacorp or government.
Well, unfortunately, there is no project like that with Wikipedia’s critical mass. Most attempts with any attention are rather horrific. See: Grokipedia.
Idk if you even want the kind of attention Wikipedia achieved, given how it ultimately became the target of endless waves of scams and influencer operations.
That said, the Wiki format has been prolific in a way even the core website has not been. The core data for Wikipedia has been harvested and replicated across a thousand different boutique iterations. A lot of what made things like Grokipedia and Conservapedia and the rest flop is that these projects tried to administer the sites even more tightly than the original. And it’s an enormous project, so that loads a phenomenal amount of work on a handful of people.
If Wikipedia dies, nothing good will replace it.
That’s an absurd presumption. Just straight off the bat, you have the old Encyclopedia Britannica. You’ve got dozens of alternative Wiki competitors with their own rarified communities of editors and contributors. You’ve got subject-specific Wikis for a thousand different fandoms, hobbies, and crafts. You’ve got physical libraries. You’ve got digital libraries. You’ve got LLM compositions of libraries.
The biggest flaw most of these have is the same one any search engine after Google had. “Why would I go here if I can just go to Wikipedia instead?”
But the idea that tens of millions of curious people and subject-experts are just going to endure a vacuum? Come on.
Wikipedia is valuable because its a reasonably sane default reference for billions of people
It’s a very English-language and Euro-History oriented source of truth for tens of millions of online nerds. If it gets subsumed or shut down or otherwise undermined by western-aligned governments, I might suggest that the problem will not be an absence of Wikipedia but the presence of a malignant surveillance-enabled censorship bureaucracy.
What you will experience is not merely a lack of oxygen but a surplus of boot on your neck.
You’ve got dozens of alternative Wiki competitors with their own rarified communities of editors and contributors.
No one uses them.
You’ve got subject-specific Wikis for a thousand different fandoms, hobbies, and crafts.
Fandom has a grip on this space, unfortunately, and that’s under Wales too. Yes, I know there are community alternatives, but their traffic/SEO is small in comparison.
But the idea that tens of millions of curious people and subject-experts are just going to endure a vacuum? Come on.
They absolutely will.
They already have!
Look at the rest of the internet. Literally every space, every niche, every congregation of experts has rotted away, and these “curious people and subject-experts” are clingimg to big social media toxic spaces because it’s the default.
It’s a very English-language and Euro-History oriented source of truth for tens of millions of online nerds. If it gets subsumed or shut down or otherwise undermined by western-aligned governments, I might suggest that the problem will not be an absence of Wikipedia but the presence of a malignant surveillance-enabled censorship bureaucracy.
You’re speaking of an internet that, for the bulk of humanity, doesn’t exist anymore. It is all but gone. That’s what I’m saying.
Maybe a few million nerds would create new Wikipedias, but the billions of other people on their phones and tablets would almsot never see it.
And that is dangerous for society. Wikipedia’s sheer critical mass is a huge monkey wrench in “soft” censorship, and for all its faults, every bit Wikipeida is delegitimized is a fascist dream-come-true.
And I hear a lot of people talking like that popularity isn’t important. There’s this sort of “old internet” attiude like we can just archive it and keep to ourselves. What does everyone else matter?
Well. Without Wikipedia putting the braKES on loss of freedoms in our IRL lives, we may lose the ability to do that.
Estimated annual revenue of around $100M. That’s half of Wikipedia’s. Someone’s using it.
No one uses them.
Quora alone has 400 million monthly active users.
Look at the rest of the internet. Literally every space, every niche, every congregation of experts has rotted away
None of that is true. Your institutional knowledge hasn’t keep pace with the modern net. And your nostalgia has biased you against anything novel or unfamiliar.
Nobody sane is using Quora as a legitimate source of information. Seems like you’re the one not keeping pace with the modern net. Would you also suggest Pinterest lead the charge in representing collective human knowledge?
It pioneered a novel mechanism for collaborating on a project with minimal trust between contributors. But it was also riddled with bias and vulnerable to exploitation and as prone to cultivating disinformation as a universal source of truth.
Rather than fixating on the site as some last bastion of Web 1.0 nostalgia, we would do well to do better than Wikipedia.
Organizations like the Internet archive project have, imho, done as much or more than Wikipedia because of their commitment to accumulating primary source material. Managing that catalog and incorporating it into an encyclopedia of knowledge is much more than just stuffing a hard drive full of editor arguments and dead links from the old site.
Well, unfortunately, there is no project like that with Wikipedia’s critical mass. Most attempts with any attention are rather horrific. See: Grokipedia.
If Wikipedia dies, nothing good will replace it.
I know that’s a bit defeatist, but I really think its “the best we got.” Nothing better is coming with the state the internet is in now.
And I just want to emphasize that maybe a small community could build something better. I know.
But in terms of “keeping a healthy knowledge base for civilization,” that kind of project doesn’t matter if no-one sees it. Wikipedia is valuable because its a reasonably sane default reference for billions of people, that isn’t some megacorp or government.
That’s a very low bar.
Idk if you even want the kind of attention Wikipedia achieved, given how it ultimately became the target of endless waves of scams and influencer operations.
That said, the Wiki format has been prolific in a way even the core website has not been. The core data for Wikipedia has been harvested and replicated across a thousand different boutique iterations. A lot of what made things like Grokipedia and Conservapedia and the rest flop is that these projects tried to administer the sites even more tightly than the original. And it’s an enormous project, so that loads a phenomenal amount of work on a handful of people.
That’s an absurd presumption. Just straight off the bat, you have the old Encyclopedia Britannica. You’ve got dozens of alternative Wiki competitors with their own rarified communities of editors and contributors. You’ve got subject-specific Wikis for a thousand different fandoms, hobbies, and crafts. You’ve got physical libraries. You’ve got digital libraries. You’ve got LLM compositions of libraries.
The biggest flaw most of these have is the same one any search engine after Google had. “Why would I go here if I can just go to Wikipedia instead?”
But the idea that tens of millions of curious people and subject-experts are just going to endure a vacuum? Come on.
It’s a very English-language and Euro-History oriented source of truth for tens of millions of online nerds. If it gets subsumed or shut down or otherwise undermined by western-aligned governments, I might suggest that the problem will not be an absence of Wikipedia but the presence of a malignant surveillance-enabled censorship bureaucracy.
What you will experience is not merely a lack of oxygen but a surplus of boot on your neck.
No one uses this.
No one uses them.
Fandom has a grip on this space, unfortunately, and that’s under Wales too. Yes, I know there are community alternatives, but their traffic/SEO is small in comparison.
They absolutely will.
They already have!
Look at the rest of the internet. Literally every space, every niche, every congregation of experts has rotted away, and these “curious people and subject-experts” are clingimg to big social media toxic spaces because it’s the default.
You’re speaking of an internet that, for the bulk of humanity, doesn’t exist anymore. It is all but gone. That’s what I’m saying.
Maybe a few million nerds would create new Wikipedias, but the billions of other people on their phones and tablets would almsot never see it.
And that is dangerous for society. Wikipedia’s sheer critical mass is a huge monkey wrench in “soft” censorship, and for all its faults, every bit Wikipeida is delegitimized is a fascist dream-come-true.
And I hear a lot of people talking like that popularity isn’t important. There’s this sort of “old internet” attiude like we can just archive it and keep to ourselves. What does everyone else matter?
Well. Without Wikipedia putting the braKES on loss of freedoms in our IRL lives, we may lose the ability to do that.
Estimated annual revenue of around $100M. That’s half of Wikipedia’s. Someone’s using it.
Quora alone has 400 million monthly active users.
None of that is true. Your institutional knowledge hasn’t keep pace with the modern net. And your nostalgia has biased you against anything novel or unfamiliar.
You’re rotting. The net is doing fine.
Nobody sane is using Quora as a legitimate source of information. Seems like you’re the one not keeping pace with the modern net. Would you also suggest Pinterest lead the charge in representing collective human knowledge?
Nobody uses anything but Wikipedia
Nobody I like use anything but Wikipedia
Uh-huh
If you’re interested in art, fashion, or any number of other hobbies, absolutely.
But if you want to host other media on their systems, it works just as well. I suspect you just feel embarrassed to use other websites.