zlacker

>>nickpa+(OP)
The advantage of a community supported encyclopedia should be a reasonable degree of impartiality, openness and academic freedom. Wikipedia has departed a good distance from this ideal and should support itself as other media does... through advertising or subscriptions. The case is best found in the OP link comments, but here's one I found that well summarizes:

"You do have to filter out some stuff unfortunately – but even academia, scientists and historians are now confessing that they are tailoring their output to ‘fit in’ with wokeness and sensitivities."

>>howmay+Xa
I have to say I can't think of a worse outcome than Wikipedia becoming advertising- or subscription-funded.

At best, it will be less useable and more liable to influence once its source of funding is at the behest of advertisers. And with a subscription model, presumably it would then be pay-to-play which is antithetical to the idea of Wikipedia in the first place.

I also don't agree that Wikipedia has to a significant degree departed from "impartiality, openness and academic freedom", or at least I'd need some sources/examples.