Asklemmy

44847 readers

1619 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

How can we fix Wikipedia? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I LOVE Wikipedia, I think it's one of the best websites of the internet.

But the fact is that Wikipedia has many flaws:

Editing became very hard on Wikipedia based on the amount of rules to respect
Wikipedia is biased, many cultures and minorities are not well represented among editors and pages.
Wikipedia is a dependence, I can't imagine Wikipedia disappear, I think it already changed the way people see knowledge, not as something fixed anymore, but as something dynamic that changes and evolve.
Wikipedia 'sources admission' are also very... Weird. Because you can be a professional in a special field, it doesn't mean your contribution will be accepted, just because your source is not coming from a 'reliable source', even if YOU are this reliable source.

There are other problems as well, but I think those are the most important ones.

What do you think about it? If you could change anything or everything to Wikipedia, what would you do?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 years ago (2 children)

The real problem is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 years ago

Wow this is very interesting, in the first years they barely managed to spend 50% of their income, and even now its only 75%. So their net assets have gone up by double digit percentages every single year. I wonder which bank holds all that money.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 years ago

I'm not one to be overly optimistic about using interesting and investment profits to fund stuff but when less than 6% of spending is used on the absolutely necessary then indeed that could be a good idea. Quite clearly it seems like they could even save up to have 10,20,30 years in the next couple of years. I had no idea they were spending so much money (a lot I'm sure justified) yet still that's pretty disgusting to donors imo. I will not be donating anytime soon for sure.