Low-quality anonymous "editors" combined with some type of tie-up to Google have turned an interesting experiment into an overlooked but destructive monopoly.
You have identified the right problem, but you're talking to the wrong people, and as written, your piece is from the wrong person to get results. Wikipediocracy are just as much an abuser of a monopoly status as Wikipedia. Their forum is awash with Wikipedia editors, including extremely high ranking members of the site's governance system, none of whom relish a future where Wikipedia either ceases to be a monopoly or otherwise comes under the same regulatory or indeed public scrutiny as Facebook or Google. You made the classic miatake of not appreciating why your edit was rejected, for understandable yet misguided reasons, which is what Wikipedia's editors and corporate owners will seize upon to discredit the rest of the piece well before it gets to the stage it would reach who it needs to reach. People like me, serious and knowledgeable critics who do actually want to end Wikipedia's dominance, are the only ones who can help you. If you want specific help turning your piece into something that could do serious damage to Wikipedia, largely by editing our your mistakes and perhaps adding even more juicy details about the largely unknown dark truths of Wikipedia (citogensis, an objective measure of their lack of quality, a brief history of how they came to be all about PR and money at the executive level, and indeed, the nightmare future of where this is likely all going, which encompasses a fundamental legal truth contrasted against a whopper of a public benefit claim) you can find me (and Eric Barbour for that matter) at the forum called Wikipedia Sucks.
Hey - this is an older piece. There is a far more in-depth one published this week, originally posted at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and cross-posted to nakedcapitalism. The INET version is here: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech. I wrote an intro post at Wikipedia Sucks and, like you noticed, also Wikipediocracy. I'm happy to talk to anybody, from Wikimedia/pedia's strongest supporters to the harshest critics.
Many of us on the left of politics have been concerned about Wikipedia editors for some time. Take some time to research the remorseless antics of 'Philip Cross' and his round the clock edits - a good place to start is here:
You have identified the right problem, but you're talking to the wrong people, and as written, your piece is from the wrong person to get results. Wikipediocracy are just as much an abuser of a monopoly status as Wikipedia. Their forum is awash with Wikipedia editors, including extremely high ranking members of the site's governance system, none of whom relish a future where Wikipedia either ceases to be a monopoly or otherwise comes under the same regulatory or indeed public scrutiny as Facebook or Google. You made the classic miatake of not appreciating why your edit was rejected, for understandable yet misguided reasons, which is what Wikipedia's editors and corporate owners will seize upon to discredit the rest of the piece well before it gets to the stage it would reach who it needs to reach. People like me, serious and knowledgeable critics who do actually want to end Wikipedia's dominance, are the only ones who can help you. If you want specific help turning your piece into something that could do serious damage to Wikipedia, largely by editing our your mistakes and perhaps adding even more juicy details about the largely unknown dark truths of Wikipedia (citogensis, an objective measure of their lack of quality, a brief history of how they came to be all about PR and money at the executive level, and indeed, the nightmare future of where this is likely all going, which encompasses a fundamental legal truth contrasted against a whopper of a public benefit claim) you can find me (and Eric Barbour for that matter) at the forum called Wikipedia Sucks.
Hey - this is an older piece. There is a far more in-depth one published this week, originally posted at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and cross-posted to nakedcapitalism. The INET version is here: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech. I wrote an intro post at Wikipedia Sucks and, like you noticed, also Wikipediocracy. I'm happy to talk to anybody, from Wikimedia/pedia's strongest supporters to the harshest critics.
Many of us on the left of politics have been concerned about Wikipedia editors for some time. Take some time to research the remorseless antics of 'Philip Cross' and his round the clock edits - a good place to start is here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/