[Mathnerd314]

I'm optimistic about Wikipedia. The popularity means if an important fact is missing it will get added, and the entrenched interests mean the fact will get reverted if it isn't balanced. Hence an article presenting a balanced, complete viewpoint is the steady state. But of course the article isn't guaranteed to reach that state.

[culi]

I've spent hundreds of hours editing Wikipedia and have come out really pessimistic about the whole thing. In fact, I'd say that everyone I know who's actually pessimistic about Wikipedia also have tons of hours of experience editing

[inter_netuser]

Can confirm. It used to be much better in early days, but deteriorated over the years to the point where I have to be sceptical about it.

Editorial slant is very real.

[wolverine876]

> I'm optimistic about Wikipedia. The popularity means if an important fact is missing it will get added, and the entrenched interests mean the fact will get reverted if it isn't balanced.

That was the hope for Wikipedia, but my experience editing it is the opposite: Editing disagreements are interminable, enormously time-consuming, legalistic free-for-alls, and whoever is most willing and able to spend their days fighting them, wins. That is usually the more radical or politically motivated person or party, some of them clearly acting for outside interested parties. The editors often participate and support such people.

You can find many descriptions of the same thing. Just search around.