I'm thinking maybe wikipedia could've just replaced all the top level editors long ago with @th3j35t3r ...
https://skepchick.org/2023/11/study-why-wikipedia-is-the-last-good-website/
@hallmarc @th3j35t3r
Read that and watched the video. My perspective is a bit different. I think the concept of crowd sourcing it is okay, and the execution has been better than anyone would have hoped. Works okay -- on a long enough timeframe -- for those topics in the article.
Where I've had problems with their bots and editors are on niche but important people, new content (so no print references), and correcting any kind of error. Very difficult to provide what they consider proof.
@b4cks4w @th3j35t3r obviously I was writing with my tongue in my cheek (Jester's policies have achieved some of what Wikipedia has achieved in 1/4 the time). The question you then have to ask is who does a better job addressing the problems you mention, at scale, and how they do it? Also, could you give a couple examples of difficulties with correcting errors?