@Gotterdammerung@glitch.social
2026-01-17 15:59 UTC
@tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com All of that illustrates what I wrote. Wikipedia is contestable, not infallible. Sure there are turf wars, ideological editors, bad definitions & power users who overreach. Crucially all of that is visible, logged, argued over & reversible. That's governance under glass.
GNU/Linux naming wars are perfect example: they're evidence that knowledge is political, contested & historically messy. Wiki isn't pretending otherwise.
Replies (1)
-
@Gotterdammerung@glitch.social 2026-01-17 16:01
@tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com Traditional encyclopedias picked a side, printed it & settled the argument. If your objection is "some editors are wrong & exert influence" then congrats. You've rediscovered humanity. The difference is that their fingers are on the crime scene. On legacy reference works, they got anonymity, authority & a dust jacket. That Wikipedia has editors w/ opinions, factions, blindspots, ego is the price of refusing to mythologize expertise as neutral, eternal or beyond challenge.