[mosqutip]

The Wikipedia ideals of having open, unbiased, and free access to information and being able to freely collaborate and edit articles directly conflict. If editing is "free", so too is slander and misinformation.

Unfortunately, I have no good solution to this problem. But then again, neither does Wikipedia.

[stfu]

The idea of an unbiased article is in my opinion just an illusion. In reality truth is a negotiation between different stakeholders and some form of settlement at the end where each side can somehow get away with.

I personally find the next posting of the author much more revealing [1]. It is a discussion on how much meaning one can find in a simple sentence such as "____ is a Jewish-American politician" all the way to the suggestion that some by "tagging all the Jews in Wikipedia dream of a time when those lists might be of service to the police."

Just goes to illustrate how much subjectivity can be infused into a few words that are in itself unquestionable facts.

[1] http://www.markbernstein.org/May13/WikipediaAndTheJews.html

[guard-of-terra]

They can start by actively discouraging lawyering and deletionism.

[lazugod]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers and deleters."

[guard-of-terra]

You want axes? You want them big? You want to swing your axe into the guts of lawyers? Do the lawyers have HUGE GUTS you want to RIP AND TEAR? Then this axe is for you.

[atdt]

How?

[derleth]

Deletionism is the only reason Wikipedia remains using. Without deletions, it would have sunk into the world of spam-trap and personal blog platform long ago.

[ars]

Delete the garbage, but leave the trivial. I hate deletionists.

[derleth]

> Delete the garbage

Which is still deletionism.

[guard-of-terra]

Why? If they define an article "A blog of John Ass", I just won't read it and my experience would not degrade.

I still get nuclear physics in "Nuclear Physics" article, amn't I?

I can't see how having more articles will make things worse.

[derleth]

> I still get nuclear physics in "Nuclear Physics" article, amn't I?

Not at the same level of quality, because they also won't be deleting the nonsense crank pseudo-science version of "Nuclear Physics" which would confuse you terribly. Deleting crap is one of the best ways to make the project as a whole useful.

[guard-of-terra]

Well, I won't read that version, I'll only read the "real" one.

Bonus points: journalists and common folk will stop pretending everything in wikipedia is true like they do now.

[derleth]

> Well, I won't read that version, I'll only read the "real" one.

You won't know which is which unless you already know enough to not need to look it up in a general reference such as Wikipedia. That's the point.

[derleth]

> If editing is "free", so too is slander and misinformation.

Edrogan said much the same thing about Twitter.