[the_af]

> Article content does not converge to the "truth". Instead it converges to whatever those who has the most time to waste on Wikipedia believes the truth to be.

I'm in agreement with you. The worst problem is that people who have not had to deal with edit wars are not aware of how clique-run Wikipedia is. And yes, cliques depend on a bunch of people with way too much free time on their hands.

I'm just saying that I don't know if there is a solution to cliques within communities. Isn't this a widespread problem beyond Wikipedia?

[bjourne]

People trust Wikipedia and that is the problem. Those who write articles and engage in battles of attrition over article content are not idealists doing it for the sake of humanity. Instead they are marketeers getting paid to polish celebrities biographical articles, authors peddling books about the joy of circumcision, people paid by governments to carry out psy-ops, etc. The only reason I took the circumcision article as an example is because - for anyone not born in a country where male circumcision is not common practice - it is obvious that it is not written from a "neutral point of view". Other articles have the same issues too. Except for them I don't know anything about the subject so I'll be fooled by Wikipedia's serious tone and many citations into believing that those articles are neutral and factual.

[tablespoon]

> Those who write articles and engage in battles of attrition over article content are not idealists doing it for the sake of humanity. Instead they are marketeers getting paid to polish celebrities biographical articles, authors peddling books about the joy of circumcision, people paid by governments to carry out psy-ops, etc.

Or obsessive low-level ideologues, who have little else going on in their lives, pushing some agenda. My impression that's the largest group.