[doubloon]

right, every other media company like the NY Times, Britannica, Guardian, do the following

     Pay writers

     Offer legal protection against defamation lawsuits

Now I ask why Wikimedia does neither? It seems a lot like basically just another Section 230 exploitation tech company, where all liability is shifted to users (editors / content creators), so its not really a media company. This does I think make it more like Facebook, Youtube, Insta, TwitterX, etc, because it is not in the business of content, it is in the business of watch-time or engagement or whatever.

Now people say "well Wikipedia writers dont get paid they are volunteers its very important" -> what this actually ends up in, in real life, is that public figures and corporations pay people to monitor and edit their Wikipedia articles on the down low. So Wikipedia writers do, in fact, get paid. They are just being paid by the subject they are writing about rather than by the media organization hosting / publishing the content. It's not overt but it's also not that hard to research if you really wanted to. And it's something no reputable media organization in the world would allow. (edited many times)